by tsakach » Wed 28 May 2008, 00:42:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Invention Secrecy Act
The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 requires the government to impose "secrecy orders" on certain patent applications that contain sensitive information, thereby restricting disclosure of the invention and withholding the grant of a patent. Remarkably, this requirement can be imposed even when the application is generated and entirely owned by a private individual or company without government sponsorship or support.
FAS: Invention SecrecyRichard Wier was granted only one patent for his ultracapacitor invention. He also had an additional 17 patent applications in review and if any one of those had potential military applications, it may have been flagged under the invention secrecy act. In addition, severe penalties can be imposed for further disclosure of details on the invention.
Some of the categories the ultracapacitor invention patent applications could be flagged on are as follows:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')atent Security Patent Review List
Group IV Weapons, Countermeasure and Fire Control
Item 4.
"Directed energy or energy projection devices and systems in which electrical particles, wave radiations, or laser beams are
claimed to cause deleterious effects on human beings or machines."
Group XI Power Supplies
Item 1. Batteries, Secondary. for low or high temperature operation; Cells for extended low temperature storage. High energy per volume batteries (for submarines, torpedoes, warheads)
Item 11. Pulsed energy source for high powered lasers.
The hypothesis I am offering based on the limited available information, is that one of his patent applications was flagged under the invention secrecy act and he was barred from further disclosure of details on his invention.
It would also be much more profitable and perhaps more feasible to sell this technology for military applications rather than for cost-sensitive automotive or alternative energy storage applications. Until they figure out how to slow down the discharge rate without compromising storage density or introducing thermal issues, I would categorize this particular invention and company as another "wait and see" technology.
Maybe you have information that can rule out this hypothesis or have another hypothesis to offer. I was hoping for something better than the "tin foil" argument.