https://www.quora.com/Does-an-invention-have-to-be-proven-to-work-or-just-conceptually-feasible-to-be-patentable
Given the recent flurry of users on this board posting comments about all of the disinformation agents we've seen here I had to post this. I was reading some stuff someone said about Jem777 and Antarctica and Babylon etc. and how they said they thought it made pizzagate look ridiculous. I have no idea what she said about any of those topics but my mind immediately went to a few disinformation agents I knew of who were all trying to spread some story about Antarctica around the same time a couple of years ago. There are definitely some well known pizzagaters who also spread a lot of disinformation and it always pisses me off. It seems like every 6 months or so one of these people will recycle an old story that was either debunked or proven to be fraudulent and nobody ever pays attention to that at all, and they just keep posting it like it's new information, or like it never got disproven. I'm thinking of the fake memes of fabricated emails that don't exist, and other claims that just never seem to get accepted as debunked and then they just keep going.
So anyway, a while back I came across an article that claims all sorts of things are possible with mind control and the proof is in the fact that these inventions all have patents. I posted this here on the forum: https://www.voat.co/v/pizzagate/2372339
Well I was looking up another product completely unrelated, that I know to be making exaggerated claims about its efficacy, and where they define their own successes into the efficacy studies, and I started thinking that I wonder if any of those mind control patents might have been filed in an exaggerated way to scare people.
I definitely think mind control is real, but I wanted to post this anyway because when I was reading through those mind control patents a long time ago, many of them seemed impossible. I think it would not be beneath someone in the CIA to file a fake patent to create fear.
If anyone has experience proving any of these patents are actually effective, I would be very interested to read the study or the paper. I know a lot can be done while someone is under the direct control of a shrink or handler and they are slipped drugs and exposed to certain stimuli and then studied, but I don't know anything about the alleged remote technologies or other triggers.
Thoughts?
view the rest of the comments →
Factfinder2 ago
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/qualifying-patent-faq.html
According to nolo.com, utility patents (as opposed to [nonfunctional] design or plant patents) must "have some usefulness (utility), no matter how trivial."
...
"To fulfill this requirement, the invention must work, at least in theory. Thus, a new approach to manufacturing superconducting materials may qualify for a patent if it has a sound theoretical basis, even if it hasn't yet been shown to work in practice."
carmencita ago
Boy if that doesn't sound like a runaround. Perfect for Big Pharma. Possibly they are working on this MK project right now or already have done so. Or it's all a fabrication as the OP says.
EffYouJohnPodesta ago
There are all kinds of products not under the FDA's jurisdiction that do have patents. Sometimes things you would think should be a medical device aren't, so they can be designed by whomever, and get a patent, and it would be similar to a supplement maker selling something that falls outside of the FDA, it cannot be regulated. The efficacy may come into question from anyone curious enough to question it. But the real litigation would be from competitors using similar designs and getting patents and having the patent challenged under intellectual property laws.
carmencita ago
They also have been allowed to create medicines without the proper seal of approval. So all kinds of things are out here. Who knows what.