I wonder why more people aren't talking about this
A lot of wishful thinking around these corners
Because it's irrelevant. Patents are supposed to mention other prior patents. Whether those are rubbish or not.
Would be pretty funny if this guy actually published a breakthrough that worked all of a sudden
I wouldn't read too much into this. You have to address prior art when it is found in patent examination as a part of application process, no matter how bogus it is.
Re:Electronic Structure of LK-99
by martinclayton on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @04:11AM
(#36968308)
It looks like the citation of the Pais patent was added by the examiner, rather than by the applicants. Does that make any difference in your view?
Cited patents are added by the examiner. Source: I have several parents.
Source: I have several parents
Ahem :)
Though it may depend on what the patents are for!
If something is prior art, you need to include it, regardless of the source. Even fictional descriptions of technologies can be prior art. For example, Samsung used 2001 A Space Odyssey as prior art to invalidate Apple's patent on ipad-like tablets.
Re:Electronic Structure of LK-99
by bl_valance on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @01:06PM
(#36973666)
I thought the inclusion of Pais' patents was more along the lines of, here is a patent related to our work, rather than we sourced tech from it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36967333
In case you aren't familiar with the man's work, here are some highlights of his discoveries over the last decade:
Conditional possibility of spacecraft propulsion at superluminal speeds
High frequency gravitational waves-induced propulsion
Piezoelectricity-induced room temperature superconductor
Craft using an inertial mass reduction device
On the Existence of the Superforce–the possible fundamental Force of Unification
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=7%2C39&q=Sal...
I can't wait for my cheap antigrav FTL iron man suit to arrive next year.