What is wrong with what Steorn is doing?

Snadert said:
His original idea was to create a database with all known TV failures. Any repairman had than just to key in the problem and his 'RepaBase' came up with the answer. But, in 1996, it was not so simple to distribute a huge database. So he looked for ways to compress the data. Obviously being not aware of digital datacompression, he looked for other ways in doing this.
Click to expand...
They had books in 1996, right? Good, because that is the way the car manufacturers do exactly what you describe, with the key (or more correctly, index) being the page number of the solution. They put out a large repair manual that lists each type of failure, how to fix it, and even how long it should take. Since a TV is considerably less complex (at least in terms of the number of components), such a repair manual would be considerably smaller.

Remember that Sloot was a shy, simple person, with low education and everything he knew about electronics came out of his job.
Click to expand...
An extremely unlikely source for such a groundbreaking algorithm, especially one that flies in the face of basic mathematics.

Like I wrote before, the Sloot case was very mysterious, his untimely dead, the huge amounts of money, the involvement of Roel Pieper. A very big issue in Holland! Pieper was christened as the coming Philips CEO by Cor Boonstra (at that time CEO of Philips). Yet Pieper resigned, and started with some other investors the venture to start selling the Sloot licenses. Pieper was not a stupid guy, he studied Computer Technologies, had been CEO of Compaq and was fully aware of possible fraud. That's why he let Sloot demo the invention for the Philips tech guys, Oracle, HP, etc.
Click to expand...
Perhaps his involvement in something that is obviously not feasible was the cause of the irreconcilable differences he had with the management of Philips.
If Sloot was a conman, he was a very, very good one, which didn't match his personality and education.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he believed his own lies? That would definitely match his personality and education.

This is the description of the algorithm, unfortunately in Dutch, but maybe you can make something out of the schemas (it will take too long for me to translate).
Click to expand...
Unfortunately without context, the diagrams are quite useless, as they are not nearly detailed enough to even get the glimmer of an idea about how it was supposed to work.
And look, I'm not trying to convince you. I just wanted to bring up a similar case where the desription in the Patent is not sufficient to reconstruct the algorithm.
Click to expand...
A patent that is not sufficient to reconstruct the algorithm is useless. If I were to figure out what the missing piece was, I could patent that piece and then sue Sloot for infringement. Only a fool or a crook would submit such a patent.

One more thing, if Pieper was such as smart and clever guy, why would he be involved with the purchase and selling of a technology that was not sufficiently protected by a patent? Seems like an incredibly silly thing to do for an experienced IT executive, a major oversight. Either that or he was in on the scam...
 
Here I've been following this incredibly, boringly, long thread about Steorn and then, suddenly, this marvelous subthread appears.

You never know on this forum! :)
 
They had books in 1996, right? Good, because that is the way the car manufacturers do exactly what you describe, with the key (or more correctly, index) being the page number of the solution. They put out a large repair manual that lists each type of failure, how to fix it, and even how long it should take. Since a TV is considerably less complex (at least in terms of the number of components), such a repair manual would be considerably smaller.
Click to expand...
You're asking me? I'm not advocating Sloots invention here. I think but I cannot proof that Sloot found something of great value. But that's not the issue here.

A patent that is not sufficient to reconstruct the algorithm is useless. If I were to figure out what the missing piece was, I could patent that piece and then sue Sloot for infringement. Only a fool or a crook would submit such a patent.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right. That's why I brought this case up. Maybe the rules for the European Patent Office are much different from those in the US? I understand Dutch perfectly well, but I can assure you that the texts describe the procedure only on the highest possible level.
 
Snadert said:
A patent that is not sufficient to reconstruct the algorithm is useless. If I were to figure out what the missing piece was, I could patent that piece and then sue Sloot for infringement. Only a fool or a crook would submit such a patent.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right.
Click to expand...
So Sloot was a crook or a fool then? On that we can agree!
That's why I brought this case up. Maybe the rules for the European Patent Office are much different from those in the US? I understand Dutch perfectly well, but I can assure you that the texts describe the procedure only on the highest possible level.
Click to expand...
Article 83 of European Patent Convention states:
The European patent application must disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.
Click to expand...
It would appear that a high level description would not suffice for a European patent.
 
Snadert said:
You're absolutely right. That's why I brought this case up. Maybe the rules for the European Patent Office are much different from those in the US? I understand Dutch perfectly well, but I can assure you that the texts describe the procedure only on the highest possible level.
Click to expand...

Grimoire said:
Article 83 of European Patent Convention states:

The European patent application must disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.
Click to expand...

It would appear that a high level description would not suffice for a European patent.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, there are methods by which such rules can be subverted. But Grimoire is correct: use of such methods would result in an invalid patent, and so they are used only by fools or crooks.

You also have to consider the nature of the technology though: a data algorithm would tend to be more compex, and more abstract, than a purely physical device like that alleged by Steorn. So even if Steorn was inclined towards submiting a questionable patent application, it would be much harder for them to obscure the nature of the device, and it would be much easier for another person to reproduce their work, so the two cases aren't really the same.

And this still ignores the issue that Steorn still hasn't shown us their patent applications, or given any indication of when they will be published, which is a detail they should know by now. This leads me to suspect there really aren't any such applications.
 
Horatius said:
And this still ignores the issue that Steorn still hasn't shown us their patent applications, or given any indication of when they will be published, which is a detail they should know by now. This leads me to suspect there really aren't any such applications.
Click to expand...
You are most likely correct. It seems unlikely that such an application has not been made. Most patent applications are publicly assessible information, and since it has not been made public, then they most likely don't exist.

This brings a question to mind. What if a jury member broke the NDA and passed the technology off to a third party. This third party could then patent the technology, and then sue the snot out of Steorn when they eventually tried to release it themselves.

This is why a reputable company will patent an invention immediately, so that they are not as vulnerable to industrial espionage.
 
Grimoire said:
You are most likely correct. It seems unlikely that such an application has not been made. Most patent applications are publicly assessible information, and since it has not been made public, then they most likely don't exist.
Click to expand...

The applications are usually published 18 months after the filing date (in most places). So if they've filed they should at least be able to tell us when they will be published, but they haven't even done this. In fact, in the only statement of theirs I can find, they assert they don't know when they will be published, which again leads me to suspect they're lying.

Grimoire said:
This brings a question to mind. What if a jury member broke the NDA and passed the technology off to a third party. This third party could then patent the technology, and then sue the snot out of Steorn when they eventually tried to release it themselves.
Click to expand...

This would be tricky. Since the third party isn't a true inventor, they should not by law get the patent, but it would be very hard for the patent office to determine this. I expect any such shennanigans would end up in court, which would be very messy for both sides.
 
You also have to consider the nature of the technology though: a data algorithm would tend to be more compex, and more abstract, than a purely physical device like that alleged by Steorn. So even if Steorn was inclined towards submiting a questionable patent application, it would be much harder for them to obscure the nature of the device, and it would be much easier for another person to reproduce their work, so the two cases aren't really the same.
Click to expand...
The European Patent Office has 4 basic rules:
  1. the device must be 'patentable'
  2. the device must be new
  3. the device must have a certain level of invention
  4. the device must be applicable
1: this means that i.e. a discovery in math is not patentable, nor is a description or a photograph. Computerprograms are not patentable;
2: an invention is considered new when it has not been made public; this is a difficult item. Unendorsed publication of an invention with the purpose of sabotage is not valid;
3: a paperclip is an invention; but when I weld two paperclips together, I can held twice as much paper, but is that an invention or a simple extension on an existing invention?
4: it must be possible to produce the invention (industrial) on a larger scale; perpetuum mobiles are excluded.

So, for Steorn is rule 4 important. The EPO does not file patents for devices/inventions that cannot be reproduced on a larger scale. The other thing is that PM's are excluded from patents. Steorn has to prove that their machine/device/generator is no PM, because PM's are considered a violation of nature's laws.

This brings a question to mind. What if a jury member broke the NDA and passed the technology off to a third party. This third party could then patent the technology, and then sue the snot out of Steorn when they eventually tried to release it themselves.
Click to expand...
The answer is in 2: Unendorsed publication of an invention with the purpose of sabotage is not valid.
 
BillyJoe said:
Here I've been following this incredibly, boringly, long thread about Steorn and then, suddenly, this marvelous subthread appears.

You never know on this forum! :)
Click to expand...

I agree on both counts. On the latter issue, it's a fascinating(and appropriate to the theme) digression.

On the former, the Waiting for Steorn drama is drawn out and boring, but I think it's important, and I keep going back to their site and here because I'm just waiting for them to publish something that can be actually examined. I can't do the science but look forward to seeing what the gang in Science and Technology here and the PhysOrg forum can do with something that's not just PR yammering.
 
Snadert said:
So, for Steorn is rule 4 important. The EPO does not file patents for devices/inventions that cannot be reproduced on a larger scale. The other thing is that PM's are excluded from patents. Steorn has to prove that their machine/device/generator is no PM, because PM's are considered a violation of nature's laws.
Click to expand...
No, Steorn does not have to prove that it is not a PM (since based on their description, it is), but they must prove it works. PMs are rejected out of course not because they are PMs, but because 1) they violate the known laws of physics, and 2) every PM ever invented has been shown to not work. If Steorn could show that it worked, they would be issued a patent.

Since they have yet to show anyone that it works, they are unable to receive such a patent.

And just so you know, any energy generating device that is 100% or more efficient, IS a PM.
 
I doubt very much that, even in the case of a working Steorn device, Steorn can file a patent request.
 
Snadert said:
I doubt very much that, even in the case of a working Steorn device, Steorn can file a patent request.
Click to expand...

You can file an application for anything. As evidence, I submit US Published Patent Application 2007 0 035 812:


Godly Powers


Abstract
Christopher Anthony Roller is a godly entity. "Granters" had been given my powers (acquired my powers) (via God probably). These "granters" have been receiving financial gain from godly powers. These "granters" may be using their powers without morals. Chris Roller wants exclusive right to the ethical use and financial gain in the use of godly powers on planet Earth. The design of godly-products have no constraints, just like any other invention, but the ethnic consideration of it's use will likely be based on a majority vote of a group, similar to law creation. The commission I require could range from 0-100% of product price, depending on the product's value and use.
Click to expand...



So you could file an application for a PM device. The presumption is that any application that claims an over-unity device will be unpatentable, but that presumption can be refuted by a clear demonstration of the device working as described. Again, it's the clear demonstration part that keeps tripping them up.

To file an application, and get a filing date, all you need is a document that, on the face of it, appears to describe and claim an invention. Such filing procedures are mostly automatic. It isn't until it gets to the Examiner's desk that a substantive evaluation of the merits is made.
 
Here's a few updates on the steorn situations.

These are official quotes from the steorn forum.

A couple of points (1) there is no 'major' announcement at the end of Q1 - I have said this again and again - all we are doing is proving an update of the status of the Jury process - no more - no less. (2) The reason for the demos during the first week of July is that there will be a lot of media attention that month on environmental issues due to the concerts taking place on 7/7/07.
Click to expand...

A user tells steorn that their website says technical specs would be released by end of Q1 2007, this is the reply:
"Detailed technical specifications will be made available at the end of Quarter 1, 2007."

Ok - this relates to us providing specifics on power density, power to weight and so on.
Click to expand...

An answer to "Do you really think you need the benefit of 7/7/07 events to generate media attention?"

it will make it easier, with the media you just never know. There will be a media agenda that week so it makes a safer bet from our side.
Click to expand...
 
Snadert said:
I doubt very much that, even in the case of a working Steorn device, Steorn can file a patent request.
Click to expand...

Horatius said:
So you could file an application for a PM device. The presumption is that any application that claims an over-unity device will be unpatentable, but that presumption can be refuted by a clear demonstration of the device working as described. Again, it's the clear demonstration part that keeps tripping them up.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It might be initially rejected, but could easily be appealed. Simply demonstrating that a) they have built it, and b) it works, would be sufficient.

How could a company possibly expect to sell something like this without a patent? I would never invest in a company that created a new technology without the legal backup to enforce the intellectual rights to it.

I reiterate: PMs are not rejected out of hand simply because they are PMs. They are not rejected because they shouldn't work. They are rejected because they DON'T work. If a company were to demonstrate that their device does in fact work, they would be issued a patent. So far, no such company has demonstrated this.
 
Blight said:
A user tells steorn that their website says technical specs would be released by end of Q1 2007, this is the reply:

"Detailed technical specifications will be made available at the end of Quarter 1, 2007."

Ok - this relates to us providing specifics on power density, power to weight and so on.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



[StephenColbert] I CALLED IT!!! [/StephenColbert]


Horatius said:
Of course, "detailed technical specs" could mean almost anything - such as info on how much power it puts out, is it AC or DC, the weight or composition of the device, it's dimensions. Things that you'd need to know to incorporate it into an existing device, but which don't tell you anything about how it actually works.

That's what I'm betting they'll show, if they show anything at all. Any takers?
Click to expand...



Any comments from those who still believe they're going to reveal the One True Secret to Wealth and Riches?
 
Horatius:
Im starting to lose faith, but I guess we'll know more on 7/7/07, and if not, we'll still have a nice concert to listen to.

Even if it's a big hoax, it's been an interesting one at that.
 
Well, we might know more then. At least you're starting to doubt, that's got to be a good thing around here.

As a hoax (assuming it is one, as I clearly do), this is a pretty good case-study, and it's all been on-line, and easily accessible. Hopefully in the future, the next time someone like this comes around, we can point to this thread as an example of what to expect.
 
Steorn: Hmm, what? Oh, did you think by "detailed" and "technical" and "specifications" we meant that we would give out "detailed technical specifications"?
John Q Public: Well, yes - that's precisely what we thought.
Steorn: How could you be so foolish? In ancient Gaelic, "technical specification" actually means "there's a payment due on my car, so I need to put out a press release to be able to filch a few more bucks out of my investors".

And the choice of the 7/7 concerts? Well, won't that be a lovely week to get sympathetic coverage rather than just calling up Popular Mechanics and doing a demo for the editors? Once again, looking more and more like a massive public relations tutorial.
 
Horatius:
I was never one of the true believers, I just had hope, which is slowly fading. I still have a glimmer of hope, I'm tired of all the nasty world politics that oil gotten us into and was hoping for a fix that doesn't involve inefficient solutions such as growing corn for bio-diesel (corn is not very effective as a crop for fuel, but it remains as an option due to subsidies given to the corn industry).

If only they switched the subsidies to Sugar Cane or Hemp (I believe hemp is the best crop for bio-diesel, followed by sugar cane), but the political system is so obtuse I don't see it coming soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom