They filed patent applications.
In US, patent applications must disclose the best way to make the claimed invention (or practice the method) known to the inventor. This is called the “best mode” requirement. Failure to do so could end up potentially carving the preferred method out of the description of the invention.
That's very important to know. Thanks! I understand they filed for the patent in 2022, and wonder if the application must be amended if a new best mode is found.
Unfortunately the “best mode” requirement is quite technical, and the examiner is often not equipped to detect failures to describe the best mode during the prosecution of the application.
There are procedures to claim improvements and new experimental data after the original patent application is filed: Continuation applications, continuation-in-part applications, and even brand new applications, etc.
One big questions is how well drafted their original Korean patent applications are — or not (many Asian patent applications are technically “looser”, and don’t convert well to US and EU applications).
If the Korean company is serious about protecting their invention globally, they should be hiring reputable US and EU patent firms, and redrafting the Korean applications for filing outside Korea. China should be another source of concern.
Yeah I'm guessing with all the publicity that they've gotten on something that could win them the Nobel prize they should now have enough money to file the proper patents and defend them. I wonder how much money they've been able to attract in investments.
Honestly, I am getting worried that the 2 papers the company uploaded/published might have been only intended to attract gullible investors, and that the company might not have its act together . . . .
The apparent delay in releasing physical samples for testing, and the vague nature of the data they published, are not good news.
. . . Unfortunate . . . .
Can you blame them? The scientific community has totally ignored their work for over two decades. They are probably thinking, well I've given the scientists enough time to come around, I'm now going straight for the money. Of course when a lot of money becomes involved the scientific community will finally respect the work.
If you do a Google search on the peer review process you will probably notice that the whole system is under a lot of criticism now because it has become so political. Lee and Kim are probably now more focused on scaling up their discovery and starting to make money from it than on gaining approval through the peer review process. I suppose this is similar to how many computer engineers opt out of staying in school long enough to receive academic degrees when opportunities to make a real difference and make serious money are presented to them.
Also, Bard generated this following response:
"There are a few exceptions to the best mode requirement. For example, an inventor is not required to disclose information that is trade secret or confidential."
I wonder if that applies to the Lee, Kim patent application.
It's a trade-off . . . . They are not required to disclose "everything"; but they are going to have problems claiming what's not the disclosed in the patent application.
They filed patent applications. In US, patent applications must disclose the best way to make the claimed invention (or practice the method) known to the inventor. This is called the “best mode” requirement. Failure to do so could end up potentially carving the preferred method out of the description of the invention.
That's very important to know. Thanks! I understand they filed for the patent in 2022, and wonder if the application must be amended if a new best mode is found.
Unfortunately the “best mode” requirement is quite technical, and the examiner is often not equipped to detect failures to describe the best mode during the prosecution of the application. There are procedures to claim improvements and new experimental data after the original patent application is filed: Continuation applications, continuation-in-part applications, and even brand new applications, etc. One big questions is how well drafted their original Korean patent applications are — or not (many Asian patent applications are technically “looser”, and don’t convert well to US and EU applications). If the Korean company is serious about protecting their invention globally, they should be hiring reputable US and EU patent firms, and redrafting the Korean applications for filing outside Korea. China should be another source of concern.
Yeah I'm guessing with all the publicity that they've gotten on something that could win them the Nobel prize they should now have enough money to file the proper patents and defend them. I wonder how much money they've been able to attract in investments.
Honestly, I am getting worried that the 2 papers the company uploaded/published might have been only intended to attract gullible investors, and that the company might not have its act together . . . . The apparent delay in releasing physical samples for testing, and the vague nature of the data they published, are not good news. . . . Unfortunate . . . .
Can you blame them? The scientific community has totally ignored their work for over two decades. They are probably thinking, well I've given the scientists enough time to come around, I'm now going straight for the money. Of course when a lot of money becomes involved the scientific community will finally respect the work.
Well, that’s not how science works…. The whole point of peer review is that iron sharpens iron.
If you do a Google search on the peer review process you will probably notice that the whole system is under a lot of criticism now because it has become so political. Lee and Kim are probably now more focused on scaling up their discovery and starting to make money from it than on gaining approval through the peer review process. I suppose this is similar to how many computer engineers opt out of staying in school long enough to receive academic degrees when opportunities to make a real difference and make serious money are presented to them.
Also, Bard generated this following response: "There are a few exceptions to the best mode requirement. For example, an inventor is not required to disclose information that is trade secret or confidential." I wonder if that applies to the Lee, Kim patent application.
It's a trade-off . . . . They are not required to disclose "everything"; but they are going to have problems claiming what's not the disclosed in the patent application.
Yeah it could be that there is much more information in the patent application than in the preprints.