"Cheap Desalination?" Topic

Lockheed Martin has applied for a patent.
link

Call me cynical, but when has anything with a Lockheed Martin (or any big aerospace / defence firm) patent ever actually turned out to be cheap…? ;-)

(And if the patent really *is* for the material, not the production process, what the hell kind of patenting system thinks that "we invented a whole new type of filter by taking a sheet of thin stuff and poking tiny holes in it" is a sufficiently novel invention to merit patent protection anyway…?)

what the hell kind of patenting system thinks that "we invented a whole new type of filter by taking a sheet of thin stuff and poking tiny holes in it" is a sufficiently novel invention to merit patent protection anyway

NOT A PATENT OR COPYRIGHT LAWYER

One based in the same common law that thinks "I wrote a wargame about a battle between the French and English" deserves copyright protection.

NOT A PATENT OR COPYRIGHT LAWYER

NOT A PATENT OR COPYRIGHT LAWYER EITHER.
They wouldn't have issued the patent without there being something new,unusual, or unique.

(And if the patent really *is* for the material, not the production process, what the hell kind of patenting system thinks that "we invented a whole new type of filter by taking a sheet of thin stuff and poking tiny holes in it" is a sufficiently novel invention to merit patent protection anyway…?)

It's one atom thick and the holes are nanometer-sized and can filter out ions, plus it's customizable to other applications.
Regardless of how simple you think a filter is, that's pretty damn unique.
Give 'em the patent and stop whining. Heck, they actually *did* it— no one else did.

It may be unique (as in nobody else has done it yet) but I don't see how it passes the "novelty" test – seems to me the same kind of problem that's causing all the huge smartphone lawsuits; patents being granted for fairly obvious developments, rather than genuine innovation. The fact that you're the first to make something shouldn't automatically lead to it being patentable, but in practice that seems to be the way it's going (arguably more so in the US than some other jurisdictions), so the system serves to stifle innovation rather than reward it.

In the case of "really small holes in a really thin sheet" I don't see how that could get a patent in a system that pays more than lip-service to requirements of novelty and non-obviousness….

This is actually very innovative and almost assuredly patentable.

(My Wife did Patent and Trademark law work for several years)

It's like saying you could not patent a revolutionary coal-burning jet engine because the wright brothers flew using a gasoline engine.

Correctly engineering Nanoscale material is very tricky and if they have pulled it off then Bully for em! Just because they are a big Corp does not make them evil. Most of the amazing technology everyone depends on and takes for granted was developed by a Big Corp.

It may be unique (as in nobody else has done it yet) but I don't see how it passes the "novelty" test – seems to me the same kind of problem that's causing all the huge smartphone lawsuits; patents being granted for fairly obvious developments, rather than genuine innovation. The fact that you're the first to make something shouldn't automatically lead to it being patentable, but in practice that seems to be the way it's going (arguably more so in the US than some other jurisdictions), so the system serves to stifle innovation rather than reward it.

In the case of "really small holes in a really thin sheet" I don't see how that could get a patent in a system that pays more than lip-service to requirements of novelty and non-obviousness….

Apples and oranges, on top of apples and oranges.
Cellphones aren't filters, and they're also commercial products, not industrial components.
Also *some* of the lawsuits have been based on patents, while some have been based on design, which is a *copyright* issue. The "sliding" and "finger-flicking" and "pinching" and "multi-touch" aspects would be patent issues. "Rounded corners," "one screen front/one button," etc. would be copyright issues. The latter might be trivial (except that they can indeed cause consumer confusion), but the former are definitely *not* trivial, nor or the capabilities (or the underlying tech) "obvious." So the comparison isn't exactly helpful, nor does it boost your point.

On the other hand, we're basing this discussion of the filter on a news report, not an actual examination of the material itself or its design. So we're limited to what the reporter understood, rather than the actual facts regarding the system. I suspect your interpretation is therefore based on incomplete information.

As it is, even if the product is "simply" "a thin sheet with small holes," I think the fact that the sheet is one atom thick and the holes are nanometer-sized is NOT trivial and shouldn't be dismissed as insignificant. I for one still consider the development novel, and I might point out that if LM hadn't believed they could get a patent on the filter in the first place, they never would have bothered to spend the R&D dollars to develop it. They did, and they deserve to profit by it.
Had they not, we wouldn't be having this discussion, nor would the world have a potential solution to fresh water scarcity around the globe.
So, in fact, the patent system *did* encourage innovation and development of something new, which otherwise would not have happened.

Also, I might ask you if your response is more a reaction to the fact that a major corporation is claiming the patent, and not that the patent is being claimed? Would you be as opposed if the patent were being put forth by a guy in a garage?

Also, I might ask you if your response is more a reaction to the fact that a major corporation is claiming the patent, and not that the patent is being claimed? Would you be as opposed if the patent were being put forth by a guy in a garage?

To be honest, yes I would. I'm not subscribed to "all big corporations are evil" (more of a general all-round misanthrope….) but I just don't think the patent system works properly. Agreed that it's a potentially big development, but it does seem to be just that; a development. Now if the process used is genuinely innovative, that may merit patent protection, but I remain unconvinced that the material should have it.

So, in fact, the patent system *did* encourage innovation and development of something new, which otherwise would not have happened.

How on earth do you know it would never have happened? Companies do R and D every day, and not solely for the purpose of getting patents.

Dom.

I would imagine it's more the process of making it than the end product. Since it's certainly cost them millions to do I would say they're entitled to their patent.

How is this different from a reverse osmosis filter?

Bowman I've never tried R.O. on salt water, so I can't say.

If this proves to be as promising as it would seem, where's the harm?

As long as it does the job cheaply, the water TASTES OK and it can weed-out the "entrails" of those nasty Coney Island "whitefish", then more power to 'em. Aerospace in the US gets what it wants from Uncle Sap anyway…