[General] Advice about Patents

[John Williamson]

Dear John M,

Thank you for that useful and informative review.

Yes indeed the idea does not violate any conservation laws!

I too have written patents in the past - helped by the legal team of a large multinational corporation. The rigour and expense of this process has put me off in the past. Your practical advice is much appreciated.

Regards, John W.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Macken [john at macken.com]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 3:16 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: [General] Advice about Patents

Hi John W,

I wanted to give you some advice concerning filing a patent application on an idea at an early stage of development.  I was the president of a company with over 200 employees.  About 5% of our budget and employees were involved in research.  I was always generating new ideas. My rule was that if there was a new idea which had a chance of working, I would judge the risk/reward ratio to determine whether it was worth devoting precious resources to experimentally test the idea.  If the decision was that it was worth perusing, the first step was to file a patent application.  The reasoning was that it might take 2 years to determine whether the idea is feasible.  If we waited until that point that we were sure it worked, then there is a chance that someone else would file a patent application first.  An idea which is cutting edge at one point in time can be fairly obvious at some later time.

In the US, it takes over 2 years before the patent office even gets around to even examining the application.  It is very easy to abandon the patent application any time before it is approved.  In fact, I purposely had defects in the patent application such as “informal” drawings so there was no chance that it would get approved before I could make this go – no go decision and before revised claims could be filed.  The informal drawings are merely drawings that show the idea but are not done by a professional patent draftsman.  I would also not involve a patent attorney in the initial filing to keep down the cost.

Almost always the application is turned down on the first examination.  Even ideas that are completely new are usually met with an initial rejection.  I viewed this as a good thing that actually strengthens the patent if it is eventually granted.  The reasoning is that if it is granted without objection, then there is no time to revise the claims and also the patent file is very thin.  In the future, there might be a law suit involving the patent.  If this has to go to court, it is actually a stronger patent if it can be shown that many patents were initially cited against it, then in the rebuttal phase, the inventor presents arguments which the patent examiner eventually found as convincing.  That analysis and history makes a stronger patent.

I presume that your electron-positron idea passes tests such as not violating any conservation laws. If you are serious, my advice is to file a patent application as cheaply as possible.  It only needs to have one claim.  It just needs to have all the technical points covered.  In the future you can hire an attorney to write new claims. Claims can be added any time up until the patent is granted.  It is even possible to add a new introduction which describes prior art. The only thing that you cannot do is add new technical information if you want to keep your original filing date.

I am the inventor on over 30 US patents and numerous foreign patents.  I have also abandoned many patent applications that I did not want to pursue after some initial work or after more information became available.

Sincerely,

John Macken

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 4:47 PM
To: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Fw: light-light interation

Dear David, Andrew et al,

Had a quick look at those - they seem to be all, as yet, theoretical.

The reason I'm interested is that I have an idea for energy generation by creating electron-positron pairs. I considered including it in the "photon and electron" paper - as an "experimental test" - but it seemed a little too way-out.

May be better put into a patent proposal!

Regards, John.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 12:25 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: [General] Fw: light-light interation
Martin

http://www.gizmag.com/experiment-to-turn-light-into-matter/32107/


Quantum Control of Light & Matter
Gordon Research Conference
https://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=12818


A photon-photon collider in a vacuum hohiraum
Pike et al (2014)
http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v8/n6/full/nphoton.2014.95.html

Other references

How to Take Light and Make Matter<http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/how-to-create-matter-from-light/371155/>

Light into matter<http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v8/n6/full/nphoton.2014.115.html>

Optical physics: Antimatter creation in an X-ray bath<http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v8/n6/full/nphoton.2014.118.html>


D


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>>
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>>; Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>>; robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com<mailto:hudginswr at msn.com>>
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [General] light-light interation

oops!

http://www.gizmag.com/experiment-to-turn-light-into-matter/32107/


On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 4:54 PM, <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
missing attachment


________________________________
From: Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>; Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>>; robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com<mailto:hudginswr at msn.com>>
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 1:52 PM
Subject: [General] light-light interation

new ref for light-light interaction to form e-p pairs.

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150828/c2d6ae89/attachment.htm>