Hello

I'm new to this forum and wanted to ask a  couple of question that seems obvious to me, but I'm sure its an oversimplification on my part.

So, I ask that everyone please have a little tolerance for this newbie:

question:

1) If someone is granted a patent for a Permanent Magnet Motor, does that mean that the motor is legit?

2) if so, then there already exist several Overunity PM motors with patents.

3) finally, if the above two are true, then why don't we just use the existing, patented, motors as our starting points and build our own variants from them?

Thanks everyone.

Getting a patent does not mean anyone has actually built a working unit.   In come cases someone gets an idea and patents it based on research and theory but they have not even built a prototype.   It's a way of saying "I thought of it first" so no one else can claim it or build it without paying me something for it.  The patent office has an official memo about any overunity or free energy devices which basically says they will not allow them (if they think they are real) for national security reasons.   So I think most patents that you might think you could easily build an OU motor from you will find are not likely to be working. 

I have to object to the "national security" rumour. The US Patent Office will refuse a patent for the following reasons:

What cannot be patented:
http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp

Laws of nature
Physical phenomena
Abstract ideas
Literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works (these can be Copyright protected). Go to the Copyright Office .
Inventions which are: Not useful (such as perpetual motion machines); or
Offensive to public morality
 
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/comments/ab98/hickman.pdf (on pages 2 and 3 you will find many arguments used by the USPTO based on "utility")

The argument of the USPTO against an "overunity machine" or a "perpetuum mobile" or "any exotic machine" will be "it is not useful", because it is assumed that it will not work (contradicts common knowledge and today's accepted science).

____________________________________________________________________________________________

A basic requirement of any patent is that the subject matter is "useful" in industry and commerce. And something that according to common knowledge or according to accepted science will not work can not be useful.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

There is no "national security" involved.

If one likes to criticise this practice of the USPTO one could argue that it is not possible to patent anything beyond today's generally accepted science. In other words, something has to be within generally accepted science before one can refer to it in a patent.

Is this good or bad? At least it helps to refuse a huge number of crackpot patents.

But note this: If you make a new discovery (develop a "new science"), it could not be patented anyway. See above: "Laws of Nature", "Physical phenomena" and "Abstract Ideas" can not be patented.

I hope this clarifies the workings of the USPTO.

Greetings, Conrad

"If one likes to criticise this practice of the USPTO one could argue that it is not possible to patent anything beyond today's generally accepted science. In other words, something has to be within generally accepted science before one can refer to it in a patent."

The current policy assures that government looses out on the next level of new technology (which present science won't support or is ignorant about, because government doesn't fund them to look into such things), and that it will not be patented.   

The current policy assures that government looses out on the next level of new technology (which present science won't support or is ignorant about, because government doesn't fund them to look into such things), and that it will not be patented.   

@Liberty: I do not understand your point. I state my opinion in order to have a meaningful discussion:

If some one finds OU or a yet unknown energy source it will be a

Law of nature,
Physical phenomena or
Abstract idea.

And it is very important that it can not be patented. Everybody can then build devices based on this "new insight into nature" or "new science" and can of course patent these devices.

And it is very important that this new

Laws of nature,
Physical phenomena or
Abstract ideas

are independently verified before one starts to believe them.

There is no conspiracy between the government and the USPTO. The USPTO only tries to protect the public from patents which describe "useless devices". You might have noticed that criminal elements try to use patents to cheat people. So, if the USPTO would grant patents based on unproven

Laws of nature,
Physical phenomena and
Abstract ideas

the patent system would be abused by criminals, deluded persons and idiots.

The patent system has many flaws but the treatment of "unproven science" by the USPTO is sensible and it works to the benefit of the public.

Real flaws of the patent system (just to state a few):

- One needs a lot of money to protect an invention by help of patents. Only financially strong individuals and companies can do that successfully.

- It is even more expensive to defend a patent in case it is infringed. Only very financially strong individuals and companies can do that successfully.

- All good ideas can be turned into useful devices (or methods) in many different ways. One can only patent a specific device (or method) and others will patent a slightly different device (or method) doing the same. In fact this is a good thing for the public (if not for the inventor), because it helps to prevent someone from dominating the market.

I am not a defender of the USPTO. I would like that everybody shares all ideas with everybody else, so in fact, I am a (helpless and powerless) enemy of the patent system. And therefore I have studied the world wide patent system extensively. But it is very counter productive to spread rumours and false allegations. The "OU scene" or "alternative science scene" is overcrowded by idiots, deluded persons and criminals. And the amount of nonsense in this scene is unlimited.

Greetings, Conrad