Here is an interesting video discussing Dr. Paul LaViolette’s view of some of the challenges/politics/biases of patenting groundbreaking technology.  Note: the relevant discussion about the Patent Office doesn’t start until just over 1 minute into the video:

He makes some interesting points.  He talks about how physics and technology can be like a religion.  As a result concepts and theories that deviate from the conventional school of thought are often confronted by scorn, or worse.  He argues that the Patent Office (ironically) has a tendency toward being conservative when inventions are proposed which greatly deviate from conventional thought, which creates a bias against ideas that violate what we believe to be true about physics.

I don’t agree with everything he says. In particular, Dr. LaViolette characterizes the Patent Office choosing to withdraw a patent from issue after it has been approved as being “illegal”.  And repeatedly talks about them “breaking the law”.  Unfortunately it is lawful, and fits within their “exercise of discretion” - which is rarely challengeable in the courts.  It is actually fully lawful to withdraw a patent from issue, and I have seen it happen from time to time. It is generally done when more experienced staff at the USPTO realize that one of the examiners has made a mistake, or failed to consider some important “prior art” patents.

On the other hand, there are also rumors from time to time that politics can play a role in the Director of the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) either deciding to withdraw a patent from issue, or “re-examine” the patent. In particular, it was believed by some, and thus rumored a few years back that the wide use of Blackberrys on Capital Hill played a role in the USPTO’s decision to re-examine key patents that threatened to shut down the beloved Blackberrys. Coincidence or politics? The truth is probably somewhere in between.  When it became apparent what was at stake with the Blackberry patent and the litigation surrounding it, the USPTO decided to take another look at it.

So the relevant question that emerges is, how receptive is the USPTO to considering ground breaking energy patents that seemingly violate the laws of physics (as we currently know them)?  How much room does this leave for technological breakthroughs if there is little room in the patent system to reconsider what we THINK we know? This is a question we will continue to consider in this forum.

As a footnote, I think the patent Dr. LaViolette is referring to in this video - the device for sending signals faster than the speed of light - is United States Patent No. 6,025,810.