Patents serve a small purpose, and I would rather the government take the patent on things that could benefit the people.
If a private company was granted the patent, progress would stall in that direction until the patent expired. I don't know what purpose the Navy's patent will serve, as I doubt the government will put too onerous of restraints on anyone wanting to develop the technology.
Alternatively, if the patent is a true patent (not likely), it should describe in detail how anyone "skilled in the art" can build a device. This should allow home builders and garage tinkerers to create devices and improve on them.
Given that the patent office is truly retarded, the patent is probably completely useless and only outlines the concept, not the implementation.
I would guess the Navy is trying to stay ahead of any other entities that want to patent the EM drive and then sell it to the military, essentially holding our military hostage for exorbitant ransom. In a case of national security, patents can be nullified, but I doubt the retarded Congress would allow that either, since their kickbacks depend on being complicit in the fleecing of the country.
Corrupted for sure. I agree with your description. It appears this patent is related to the Philadelphia Experiment and the Nazi Bell. Interesting stuff, for sure.
It is interesting for sure.
The date on the patent application is April 2016, so well before Trump was elected. I don't know if there is any information available around that time to explain the reasoning for such a patent at such time.
I wonder if anyone actually understands how gravity works yet. Just knowing that would be huge. My guess is the patent is invalid because nobody actually understands it and there is no detail of an implementation as such. The patent attorney has enough language skills to baffle the patent clerk, however.
If there is prior art, no one can make a patent on it. So, if the government wants anyone to be able to build it, all they need to do is release it in the public domain
You are correct, but Prior Art is an issue for the courts, and usually takes a fuckton of money and even then, with the kiked judiciary, nothing is certain.
The patent rush from 2000 to 2010 or so was to add "on a computer" on everything.
Patent for how to organize files "on a computer" - granted, even though decades of actual filing organization set the stage for how to set up the computers.
Patent for renaming a file "on a computer" etc
It is always much easier to be the first to file now, and deal with any prior art cases after getting the patent. Losing a patent to prior art is way cheaper than losing to another company and then fighting with a court to accept that prior art exists.
"If a private company was granted a patent"
well then maybe we shouldn't treat companies like people by law huh? lmfao fucking stupid, corporate personhood is jewish cancer.
(post is archived)