Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!houxa!jhs
From: jhs@houxa.UUCP (J.SCHERER)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.physics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machine (Honest!)
Message-ID: <634@houxa.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Mar-85 16:02:02 EST
Article-I.D.: houxa.634
Posted: Fri Mar 15 16:02:02 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Mar-85 05:20:15 EST
References: <261@eneevax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 7
Xref: watmath net.misc:7541 net.physics:2245 net.sci:287

I saw the same thing in today's paper.  The court didn't order the
patent office to issue to patent, they ordered the inventer to
demonstrate the "device" first.  The inventer refused saying that
he's offered to show it earlier and had been laughed at - also that
the law doesn't require a demonstration.
No, I don't believe it (but I'd be happy to be proved wrong).
  John Scherer  Bell Labs