"Gordon D. Pusch" wrote:
>>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 what?
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
