Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site bu-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!bu-cs!root
From: root@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: net.misc,net.physics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machine (Honest!)
Message-ID: <256@bu-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-Mar-85 19:06:30 EST
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.256
Posted: Sun Mar 17 19:06:30 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 03:54:40 EST
References: <261@eneevax.UUCP> <634@houxa.UUCP>, <2059@sun.uucp>
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 12
Xref: watmath net.misc:7568 net.physics:2255 net.sci:292

I may be completely wrong but I thought in my reading of
a gov't pamphlet on obtaining patents a few years ago
that the *only* patent applications which they would
require a working model were those that claimed to be
'perpetual motion machines' [I think that was followed
by some generalized definition which would cover the
aforementioned item...like produces more energy than it
consumes.]

Patent lawyers: comments?

	-Barry Shein, Boston University