New level of silliness: US Patents and Trademarks Office

[Urban Ranger]

Not that long ago, anoter ACS'er posted a thread on a new US patent on yet another perpetual motion machine "invention." That sort of scam has been getting through the USPTO with increasing frequency. However, worst has yet to come.

When I was reading the weekly commentary on the James Randi Education Foundation website, I came upon this little gem: Q-Ray, a new "invention" granted patent number 5,989,178 by the USPTO.

Some interesting bits:

A magnetic ring adapted to be worn on the little finger of the hand. The magnetic ring includes a ring and a pair of permanent magnets that extend from the ring. When the magnetic ring is worn on the little finger of the right hand, the pair of permanent magnets are oriented on the top and bottom, respectively, of the little finger, with the South pole of the magnet that is oriented on the top of the little finger generally contacting the top of the little finger, with the North pole of the magnet that is oriented on the top of the little finger in opposition thereto, with the North pole of the magnet that is oriented on the bottom of the little finger generally contacting the bottom of the little finger, and with the South pole of the magnet that is oriented on the bottom of the little finger in opposition thereto. When the magnetic ring is worn on the little finger of the left hand, the position of the polarities of the pair of permanent magnets are reversed from that of the right hand. The magnetic ring can also be made to fit around all the fingers of the hand and all the toes of the foot.

The whole human body is a magnetic community. Each individual cell is a magnet and has polarities of North and South just like a regular magnet. That is why cells attract each other and form finally into a more complicated community, an animal body.

Randi proceeded to made some comments:

The examiner for the USPTO is listed as John P. Lacyk. May I ask, did — or does — Mr. Lacyk understand this?. . . Surely, if he made his professional decision to grant a patent to this quack device, he must have accepted the silly "scientific" statements in the application, some of them shown above, as being true. What are his qualifications? Where did he learn this exotic view of biology? Does Mr. Lacyk have any scientific education at all? Does he believe the "science" offered here to be true? Does he have any common sense? What qualifies him for this responsible job?

Perpetual motion machines is one thing, but this? I am just waiting for somebody to start transmuting lead into gold by methods other than particle physics...

[DarthVeda]

the patent office might as well just get a machine that says "approved"

[FrustratedPoet]

Does it really matter that a patent was granted for this? It wouldn't work and will never be mass-produced. Sure, it's a bit dumb, but it doesn't hurt anyone.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, you just hit the issue on the head - the patent office's job isn't to pass judgment on whether something will work. It's job is to see that there's enough documentation of whatever the design is, to verify that it is not in conflict with existing patents, and to be able to describe and index the thing enough so that if someone tries to infringe this patent later , the infringement (or lack) can be identified if someone tries to patent a similar device.

Most of the stuff patented probably never worked.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
the patent office might as well just get a machine that says "approved"

Why don't you design one, write up the documentation and submit it to the Patent Office?

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

....Most of the stuff patented probably never worked.

Quite correct. You can apply for a patent before you even build a prototype. Once you have a working prototype you are in a position to get the patent certified. That's why you see items with "patent pending" on them - the patent has been applied for but not approved yet.

I would guess that 60% or more of patents are never reapplied (you have to apply each year for an extension, up to the 20 year maximum) because the concept just does not work.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet


Why don't you design one, write up the documentation and submit it to the Patent Office?

Great idea.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Actually, you just hit the issue on the head - the patent office's job isn't to pass judgment on whether something will work. It's job is to see that there's enough documentation of whatever the design is, to verify that it is not in conflict with existing patents, and to be able to describe and index the thing enough so that if someone tries to infringe this patent later , the infringement (or lack) can be identified if someone tries to patent a similar device.

Most of the stuff patented probably never worked.

Why would anybody care if that stuff does not work?

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Why would anybody care if that stuff does not work?

Like MtG said, the job of the patent office isn't to care about the inventions, nor to pass judgement on their usefulness or profitability, but to simply check that it isn't a copy of someone else's idea.
The fact is that nobody actually cares about these weird things other than their inventors and hack journalists looking to fill pages/air-time on a slow news day.

[Urban Ranger]

The whole idea of a patent is to let the inventor having a sanctioned monopoly on his widget, thus giving a financial incentive to inventing new things.

If an "invention" doesn't work, it can't be sold. So why give it protection?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Because if you deny protection to something that isn't an unauthorized copy or otherwise infringing, then you place yourself in the position of being litigated against, and having to prove via expert testimony that something won't work. Obviously easy to do with something like this, but if you're in the business of denying some patents based on opinion of their feasibility, you're in the business of judging all patent applications for (your opinion of) their feasibility. In addition to the cost and technical burden, there's also room for corruption in the process if you introduce that factor. So the PTO does not make judgments in that regard.

Besides, it's for the marketplace to determine whether something can be sold or not, unless it expressly conflicts with some other regulatory scheme (FDA, CPSC, FTC, etc.)

[The Mad Monk]

Because it would be a hell of lot more expensive in terms of personel and equipment to actually prove or disprove the feasibility of "inventions" that flood in yearly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Does Mr. Lacyk have any scientific education at all?

IIRC, you have to have a BS in a science field to work in the Patent Office.

[Urban Ranger]

Maybe they should ask for a working prototype before they finally grant the patent? That would make these phoney crap vanish in the blink of an eye.

That's also the consideration of protecting the public. Most people don't realise that patents don't mean anything these days, so scammers can easily foist their schemes on unsuspecting customers who think that a patent is some sort of guarantee.

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by Cruddy
Quite correct. You can apply for a patent before you even build a prototype. Once you have a working prototype you are in a position to get the patent certified. That's why you see items with "patent pending" on them - the patent has been applied for but not approved yet.

I would guess that 60% or more of patents are never reapplied (you have to apply each year for an extension, up to the 20 year maximum) because the concept just does not work.

Another reason is that firms often don't bother certifying their patents. Product life cycles are so short nowadays, and good ideas will be copied anyway, so having a patent pending will be enough to give you that 1-2 year lead over your competitors.