It was never granted, it's "Abandoned" (as of today!).
Great example of why Occam's Razor is so important. The poor guy probably was day dreaming or for some reason blacked out for a few minutes, but wow. This thing is quite the read.
The application was rejected by the USPTO. And the applicant Abandoned the application. It will never become a patent.
This is a non-story. The application was filed by someone who willingly spent their money. The USPTO rejected it. And now its on the front of Hackernews.
> a pendulum (A) held in the left hand over the right hand will spin in the counterclockwise direction due to the hyperspace energy vortex (B) emanating from the palm of the right hand. This vortex arises because human beings are hyperspace energy beings that live in physical containers located in this universe. The vortex might be considered a wormhole between space and hyperspace. Notice that the angular momentum vector of the vortex points up out of the palm of the hand. If the hand were spinning from left to right, then there would be a force exerted, as shown by the above equation, that would bring hyperspace energy into the right arm.
Oh you're not missing anything. It's just fun for people who like to read woo-woo as a brainless hobby. It's even better when they orators wear khaki vests as if it somehow legitimizes what they're about to peddle.
Guy daydreams, walks past his bus stop. Attributes the event to spontaneous teleportation due to pulsed gravitational waves generated by a nearby plane. 15 years later, the internet (well, HN at least) gets some lolz.
ah yes, a great old cultural phenomenon. for those who haven't seen it, Whang! did an episode on this for his Tales from the Internet series that I highly recommend: https://youtu.be/rj9acDtMooA
I was preparing myself to go on a rant about the evils of the US IP infrastructure - copyrights, patents, etc... Until I checked the patent application again and saw it was REJECTED. Why are we talking about this ? If I want to glimpse into the mind of a lunatic, I'll call my mother ...
(love you mom)
It probably was downvoted because humorous comments that seem to be just for humor's sake usually aren't considered to add to the discussion. That's not to say that they never can, but it seems fairly uncommon.
I was interested in why it was rejected, the answer was funnier than expected:
The invention is not supported by a credible utility or well established utility because the claims call for the generation of gravitational waves and the interacting of the waves with hyperspace and the effects which are asserted to come from such interactions. The existence of hyperspace is not well proven or shown to exist in accordance with credible science and physics. The use of hyperspace and gravitation waves in the claims therefore must be backed up with significant scientific experimental data to firstly prove that hyperspace interacting with gravitation waves produces some effect and secondly that the applicant has the ability to harness such interaction for a useful purpose and can demonstrate such on demand.
Also the existence of wormholes and the generating of wormholes is in question currently in the scientific community and as such these claims must be backed with proof through scientific data and description
[...]
The examiner maintains that the present invention does not conform to known scientific principles [...]
>> the present invention does not conform to known scientific principles
Nutjob aside, does that mean you can't patent an invention if you don't fully understand why it works?
I wouldn't be surprised if there were patents granted for things physically impossible. And on the other hand I would bet there were inventions in the course of history that defied the then-current known science.
You can patent things even if you don't know exactly why it works. However a patent has to enable others to create the thing that is patentend.
That is to say, somebody who is up to date in the field should be able to create the invention using the knowledge from the field plus the details in the patent.
We have all seen a lot of accepted but impossible patents but is there any known refused patents of valid invention because the examiners didn't understood the science behind it ?
What's funny is we are trying to Pierce through into a mirror dimension in Tennessee right now, for science, and you guys think this dude's a lunatic for his ideas lol.
45 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 84.9 ms ] threadGreat example of why Occam's Razor is so important. The poor guy probably was day dreaming or for some reason blacked out for a few minutes, but wow. This thing is quite the read.
The application was rejected by the USPTO. And the applicant Abandoned the application. It will never become a patent.
This is a non-story. The application was filed by someone who willingly spent their money. The USPTO rejected it. And now its on the front of Hackernews.
No patent was ever granted.
Profiles on the "inventor" include:
https://steemit.com/history/@scubasteve/who-is-inventor-john...
https://zapatopi.net/blog/?post=200604284330.st_clair_hyperi...
And you don't wade in. It's a hard head-first dive off the 30-footer.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&u=%2Fn...
I see stuff like that and I'm out -- without the feeling of having missed anything.
Just wanted to say, the people of the Congo want to know who made up Belgium.
Many lolz
"...Wanna see me do it again?"
-- Spongebob Squarepants, aka The Quickster
EDIT: This got downvoted in <1 minute, so I have to assume the Quickster was watching this thread too
* Walking through walls training system * Internet accessible mail box system * Permanent magnet propulsion system * etc...
https://patents.google.com/?assignee=St+Clair+John+Q
The invention is not supported by a credible utility or well established utility because the claims call for the generation of gravitational waves and the interacting of the waves with hyperspace and the effects which are asserted to come from such interactions. The existence of hyperspace is not well proven or shown to exist in accordance with credible science and physics. The use of hyperspace and gravitation waves in the claims therefore must be backed up with significant scientific experimental data to firstly prove that hyperspace interacting with gravitation waves produces some effect and secondly that the applicant has the ability to harness such interaction for a useful purpose and can demonstrate such on demand.
Also the existence of wormholes and the generating of wormholes is in question currently in the scientific community and as such these claims must be backed with proof through scientific data and description
[...]
The examiner maintains that the present invention does not conform to known scientific principles [...]
etc. etc.
edit to add the source: https://globaldossier.uspto.gov/#/details/US/10953212/A/8753... (click on "non-final rejection")
Nutjob aside, does that mean you can't patent an invention if you don't fully understand why it works?
I wouldn't be surprised if there were patents granted for things physically impossible. And on the other hand I would bet there were inventions in the course of history that defied the then-current known science.
That is to say, somebody who is up to date in the field should be able to create the invention using the knowledge from the field plus the details in the patent.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure