A perpetual-motion machine may defy the laws of physics, but an Indiana inventor recently succeeded in having one patented. On November 1 Boris Volfson of Huntington, Indiana, received U.S. Patent 6,960,975 for his design of an antigravity space vehicle. Volfson's craft is theoretically powered by a superconductor shield that changes the space-time continuum in such a way that it defies gravity. The design effectively creates a perpetual-motion machine, which physicists consider an impossible device. Journalist Philip Ball reported on the newly patented craft in the current issue of the science journal Nature. Robert Park, a consultant with the American Physical Society in Washington, D.C., warns that such dubious patents aren't limited to the antigravity concept. "I might hear a complaint about a particular patent, and then I look into it," he explained. "More often than not it's a screwball patent. It's an old problem, but it has gotten worse in the last few years. The workload of the patent office has gone up enormously."

Some people might consider patents on unworkable products to be relatively harmless. Park, a physics professor at the University of Maryland at College Park, disagrees. "The problem, of course, it that this deceives a lot of investors," he said. "You can't go out and find investors for a new invention until you can come up with a patent to show that if you put all this money into a concept, somebody else can't steal the idea.

View: Full Article | Source: National Geographic

thats true in business sense...but to inventors every project is a baby...

I have seen some products sold with the words"Patent Pending" instead of a Patent Number. These are usually on cheap imported junk that's of questionable worth. That must be away around sum laws.

Patent pending only means that a patent has been applied for, not approved, therefore any effort to steal the idea is fruitless, it doesn't mean that the idea is legitemate and workable.


Any invention relying on one mans theoretical assumptions should be highly scruitinized and no investment should take place without peer-evaluated experimental procedures that prove the theoretical applications legitemate and scientifically viable... As well, I believe that a patent should not be approved until the above crieteria is met and that it should remain pending until so, in order to protect dim-witted investors. A patent office should not only aim at protecting an individuals ideas but also a reputation for scientifically sound patents, in order to prevent a back-logged collection of useless pseudo-science.