jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com (jmdrake) writes:
> argument. In fact NASA's pattent of the device (yes they do have a
> patent) says nothing about UFOs or anything else. I'm suprised that
> someone as "logical" as yourself would fall into such a crackpot trap.
> Here's the link to NASA's patent.
>>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,317,310.WKU.&OS=PN/6,317,310&RS=PN/6,317,310
On the contrary: Patents say =NOTHING= about the validity or functionality
of what is allegedly patented; patents only prove who filed first. Contrary
to popular belief, the USPTO does =NOT= require a "working model," nor does it
test =ANY= of the claims in the patent. The patent examiner simply attempts
to verify that none of the alleged claims have been made by someone else in
the past, nor are "obvious to one skilled in the art" --- and quite frankly,
they are not especially competent at even that. A large fraction of US patents
are quite frankly not worth they paper they are printed on. Caveat Emptor.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'