The same scientist, Salvatore Cezar Pais, also patented what reads suspiciously like an EmDrive: https://patents.justia.com/patent/10144532 I'm curious what any physicists here have to say.
I'm guessing that this superconductor concept hasn't actually been reduced to a prototype. Unfortunately, per the USPTO, "[a]n applicant need not have actually reduced the invention to practice prior to filing." https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html#d0e215... A patent can simply describe a so-called prophetic example. "A prophetic example describes an embodiment of the invention based on predicted results rather than work actually conducted or results actually achieved." Id.
EDIT: Yep. The abstract from this 2019 paper, "Room Temperature Superconducting System for use on a Hybrid Aerospace-Undersea Craft", clearly (IMO) says the concept is as-yet unconfirmed. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2019-0869
Given that government-created documents are put in the public domain, not limited by copyright, why are government inventions different and restricted by patents?
Also, what are fair and usual terms to use a government-owned patent?
I don't know the scope or applicability of this regulation (i.e. what loopholes exist or alternative mechanisms for licensing), but "licensing of government-owned patents... will generally be royalty free, revocable and nonexclusive. They will normally be issued to all applicants and will generally contain no limitations or standards relating to the quality or testing of the products to be manufactured, sold, or distributed thereunder." https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/6.3
I don't think the [notorious] Bayh-Dole Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act) applies as it seems the inventor is an actual DoD employee (Naval Air Systems Command/NAWCAD, NAS Patuxent River), not a scientist at a private institution receiving government funding.
I'm guessing that this superconductor concept hasn't actually been reduced to a prototype. Unfortunately, per the USPTO, "[a]n applicant need not have actually reduced the invention to practice prior to filing." https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html#d0e215... A patent can simply describe a so-called prophetic example. "A prophetic example describes an embodiment of the invention based on predicted results rather than work actually conducted or results actually achieved." Id.
EDIT: Yep. The abstract from this 2019 paper, "Room Temperature Superconducting System for use on a Hybrid Aerospace-Undersea Craft", clearly (IMO) says the concept is as-yet unconfirmed. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2019-0869