The mechanical assembly of the device is patentable, but to state in the
patent that the machine works in a way which it does not (ie, I get free
energy from my device, or my device keeps running forever) is not
patentable.  But then, the patent office will usually give a patent
based on what the author has said it will do without testing it, and
wait for a lawsuit which will invalidate the patent.

-Adam

Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> >> Spoil-sport!  Now how could you possibly disagree with the US
> >> Patent Office?  to wit:
> >
> >  Who's disagreeing?  They don't care, there's no requirement that it
> >*works* at all (I gather many don't).  They pay the money, the Patent
> >Office takes the money, pays their clerks.  Everyone's happy...
>
> I understood, perhaps naively, that perpetual motion devices were officially
> unpatentable.
>
> RM
>
> _____________________________
> What can one man do?
> Help the hungry at no cost to yourself!
> at  http://www.thehungersite.com/