Pogopoint99
Senior Member.
We all know how conspiracy theorists like to support their arguments by quoting patents. I typically counter by saying that a patent doesn't mean the invention has been created, and furthermore, a patent doesn't mean the invention will even work. At least I've always believed the latter to be true, but is it entirely true? Upon reviewing some of the requirements for patent approval, and some of the bizarre patents out there, I'm no longer sure and I'm left somewhat confused.
Many web sites will state that patents are awarded on three basic criteria. An invention must be novel, useful and non-obvious. The first and third criteria are fairly straight forward. For instance, I wouldn't be able to patent a cell phone, as it's already been invented. Also, I couldn't paint my cell phone blue and have it patented, as that would not make it a sufficiently novel invention. It's the second criteria that's confusing me at the moment: An invention must be useful. Following are a few explanations of the "useful" criteria:
Bitlaw
WikiBooks
United States Code Title 35 - Patents
So, according to these definitions, is it right to say that a patented invention is required to work? If the answer is YES, and inventions are required to work, consider the following:
It's a turn table that spins a pregnant woman at up to 7G's to facilitate child birth. Assuming I haven't been punk'd and this is a real patent, some examiner deemed this invention to be useful in the sense that the machine will operate to perform the intended purpose (reduce child birth stress to the mother) and presumably not kill her.
I look at all of this information and I honestly don't know if it can be argued that a patented invention should be expected to work or not.
Many web sites will state that patents are awarded on three basic criteria. An invention must be novel, useful and non-obvious. The first and third criteria are fairly straight forward. For instance, I wouldn't be able to patent a cell phone, as it's already been invented. Also, I couldn't paint my cell phone blue and have it patented, as that would not make it a sufficiently novel invention. It's the second criteria that's confusing me at the moment: An invention must be useful. Following are a few explanations of the "useful" criteria:
Bitlaw
"The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness; that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent."
WikiBooks
"To be patentable, an invention must be "useful." This requirement is known in patent law as utility. There are three "types" of utility that appear in precedent: together, they form the notion of "utility" as it is applied by the Patent Office.
General utility is the notion that a patentable invention must "do something." It must have a useful function of some kind. In practice, it is not difficult to find a function for an invention: an invention can be purely entertaining and still be useful.
Specific utility refers to the ability of the invention to perform its function. It is the most commonly invoked form of utility. The specific utility doctrine is used to invalidate inventions such as perpetual motion machines, which may have a formal function but which are highly unlikely to fulfill that function."
United States Code Title 35 - Patents
PART II
CHAPTER 10 — PATENTABILITY AND TRADEMARK OFFICE OF INVENTIONS
35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Unfortunately, this last document, the United States Code Title 35, which seems to be the actual law, doesn't seem to define how it is using the word "useful".
So, according to these definitions, is it right to say that a patented invention is required to work? If the answer is YES, and inventions are required to work, consider the following:
APPARATUS FOR FACILITATING THE BIRTH OF A CHILD BY CENTRIFUGAL FORCE
Patent Number 3,216,423
The present invention relates to apparatus which utilizes centrifugal force to facilitate the birth of a child at less stress to the mother.
Patent Number 3,216,423
The present invention relates to apparatus which utilizes centrifugal force to facilitate the birth of a child at less stress to the mother.
It's a turn table that spins a pregnant woman at up to 7G's to facilitate child birth. Assuming I haven't been punk'd and this is a real patent, some examiner deemed this invention to be useful in the sense that the machine will operate to perform the intended purpose (reduce child birth stress to the mother) and presumably not kill her.
I look at all of this information and I honestly don't know if it can be argued that a patented invention should be expected to work or not.