Live data from Hacker News

US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

patents.google.com

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skilled people... In that type of case, I would expect the patent to fail the utility requirement (§101). But attacking it on written description or enablement (§112(a)) might work as well.

What are these referencing? Ah... §101: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html §112(a): https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2161.html

Proper citations would be prefixed with “35 USC”, for Title 35 of the United States Code. Title 35 contains most of the law regarding patents. Sections 101, 102, 103, and 112 are the most important ones concerning eligibility and validity.

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#92
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... some other party may have been prevented from taking the idea beyond speculation, since they can't capitalize on it, right? That's not really true. Suppose my invention requires A, B, and C, but C doesn't exist yet. Now suppose another inventor invents C and patents it. If I can't make my invention without C (i.e., there is no substitute), then they can charge whatever they want for it. They will take all of th…

This is pretty much it. Every patent that relies on another patent lists what those are. For this very reason. A lot of patents have long lists of other patents they rely on. Sometimes the only reason something hasn't become a real thing is because of unresolved patent claims. And in any case, the patent is still useful because they can work on ways to get around the need for using the unresolved patent requirement.…

> Every patent that relies on another patent lists what those are. For this very reason.

That’s not the reason for the list of references in a patent. The reason for the list is to identify relevant prior inventions that may be useful to understanding the invention as well as references that the examiner considered during prosecution. The references don’t mean that the patent would infringe those prior inventions.

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#93
post #89
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So instead of only getting the patent when you yourself have a working implementation, you sit back and wait for someone else to solve your problems for you so you can jump on them and call it infringement? And these aresupposed to encourage invention? Yeah..... No.

Interesting way of wording this, but if I paid for research and the patent process, and someone beats me to production and I have the patent protecting my investment into the idea they are now making money on, then yes, they'd owe me for my research, which I may or may not license to them. If you think you've invented something, then you need to do your own research to see if what you invented hasn't already been inv…

Ypu're missing the point. There is no way anyone can implement or disprove the merits of this patent. No one now has an incentive to even try, because it's already owned. Therefore, innovation not encouraged.

When the legal construct becomes a method of financial speculation, I object to the assertion it does anything other than what it seems to do on the tin, which is provide a framework to front run people doing actual work.

I don't buy it.

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#94
post #24
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are a few different perspective/camera quirks coming together in these videos which can (apparently) trick even well trained pilots. How does that explain the radar readings? "The tic tac – so-called because of its rounded shape and white colour – was caught on video as the US Navy attempted to identify a series of objects spotted on radar flying off America’s west coast in November 2004. ... The sighting cam…

"deeply experienced radar operators": what does that mean? They're not looking at raw radar signals, like some WWII operator with an O-scope. They're looking at a computer-generated signal. And lots can go wrong between the radar signal and the computer screen. Likewise, "the most advanced flight technology ever created" has absolutely nothing to do with it. They could have been in a hot air balloon and seen the same…

Military radar systems have modes and methods for detecting or removing jamming:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception#Co...

"The most important method to counter radar jammers is operator training. Any system can be fooled with a jamming signal but a properly trained operator pays attention to the raw video signal and can detect abnormal patterns on the radar screen."

So they do have the ability to look at the raw signal, and other methods as well to try to tell if something is real or not. Also there may have been multiple types of radar systems (different aircraft, ground vs air, different software revisions, different approach angles); it would be very difficult to fool all of them at the same time. For example if there were three aircraft, each at a different approach angle, the false signal would have to adapt to that approach angle individually for each aircraft's radar (or the supposed software glitch would have produce coherent results that are adapted to each aircraft's approach vector so that they all "see" the same thing in the same place). The same is true for false signals from natural sources. Which is not very likely unless you're dealing with a sophisticated human attack on the radar. To fake signals for multiple sensors on multiple approaching aircraft at the same time would require an even more sophisticated attack. Who knows if that is possible, but it does not seem very likely, especially in a peacetime operation during which there would be little reason to reveal such a capability.

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still have no idea why Lex Fridman is an interviewer of any sort. His grasp of grammar and superb lack of vocabulary paired with a constant stoner monotone make him unwatchable for me. How does he keep managing to snag such illustrious guests?

https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=4439 How the fuck do you honestly utter a sentence like this and expect not to appear like a 15 year old stoner still in High School? I don't even dislike him as a person, I'm just concerned for his mental health at this point. He seems to be really struggling to out sentences together in a coherent fashion.

That's harsh. English is not his first language, he's not the subject matter expert and he's having a free flowing discussion/interview that was going on for perhaps 2 hours by the time you've hand picked a random subpar sentence.

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#96
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With such a wide diversity in radical patents, Occam’s Razor should be applied. He is either a magnitude more brilliant than Einstein or he’s a crackpot. “There is no relationship whatsoever between my assigned duties and the invention. The invention was made independently of any job performance or assigned tasks by the Branch or Section.” https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37134/emails-show-navy...

That's fair, but then how do you explain the Tic Tac UFO reports from US Navy pilots? [1] [1] https://youtu.be/PkPn-YMp9vI

All three of these videos have perfectly reasonable explanations. See [1] [2] [3]

[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs

[2] https://youtube.com/watch?v=3viYcYPRdu4

[3] https://youtube.com/watch?v=jWWGmiZs4JA

Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why I applied for patents on my novel fusion reactor design. I think it will work, I hope it will work, but it's still untested.

If you can describe your reactor design and the specific parts that are novel in detail, you can get a patent on these specific details, and pull together 50k for a robust patent application and review, you should get it.

My patents have already been approved. More info at http://www.DDproFusion.com
Post reply on HN