|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
"My gold is not natural gold, but it is molecule for molecule
indistinguishable from naturally occurring gold" - if it's molecule for
molecule, it IS natural gold.
In any case, if you manage to find a way to make gold from lead (where the cost
of the lead and the process is substantially less than the sale value of the
gold), you wouldn't patent it. You'd keep it a trade secret and start bringing
in the cash.
Note that parenthesised clause: if it costs more to make gold than you get by
selling it, you're in the same boat as many modern tech companies: "yes, we
make a loss on every item sold, but we're hoping to make it up in volume"
:-)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 06:18 AM EDT |
If one developed a process by which one could build a molecule by molecule
identical copy of Gene Quinn would he be patentable?
And would he be as ignorant of basic science?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 09:53 AM EDT |
Patently O is Dennis Crouch's blog, but you indicated you're replying to Gene
Quinn. Mr. Quinn's blog is "I.P. Watchdog".
I've had occasion to visit both sites, and I would opine that Mr. Crouch's site
is a much more pleasant read. Mr. Quinn's writings reflect an attitude of
self-entitlement that I find annoying and distracting, and his responses to
opposing comments are arrogant and petulant.
Both sites are strongly pro-patent, but Mr. Crouch is much more of a "class
act", IMHO.
I have no stake in either site, just sharing an opinion.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- DOH - Authored by: MDT on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 09:10 AM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 01:56 PM EDT |
Any patent is good to him. He cannot analyze beyond that, so his opinions are
worthless.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
