So maybe they've filed the application but have not received the patent/disclosed the invention yet? In the US, you have to prove that you were the first to invent something, not the first to file something (as in Europe), so the secrecy would make some sense...

It's worth noting that the US is switching to a first-to-file system early next year.

I'm sure they've used some unique combination, treatment and application of those materials to create this effect.

The point of a patent is that you must disclose the method in return for a limited monopoly.

It's to encourage the sharing of techniques!

When a patent is granted, or 18 months after its filing, it's published. Until that time there's no obligation to disclose and no attorney would ever advise it. If the USPTO should rule it not patentable, it could still be a very valuable trade secret.

So it is. Go find their patents and read them. Deduce what you can.

The spokesman is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to make this easier than necessary. That is how the game is played. Nor is he a lawyer, or foolish enough to issue an off-the-cuff statement that undercuts the work of the actual team that has crafted the wording of the patents.

Ok, but why are you replying to me about this?

I was trying to address kondro's obvious confusion about mikeknoop's point, not pass judgement on anyone in the article.

Given the number of patents in existence at the moment and the complex wording, if someone didn't tell you what something was called you probably wouldn't be able to find their patent. Security through obscurity.

Which is exactly what the patent is supposed to describe, in detail.

Take X, Do Y, Add special sauce Z. We have patented this method biatches, no touchies.