Well, I guess I'm a bit more cynical than you. It doesn't matter how much proof the original inventer has: if he doesn't have the right connections and if his lawyer isn't part of the inner circle that attends all the same cocktail parties the judge attends, he's going to lose.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Well, I would not have posted this article if it had been published at his own website or some fringe site. CNN published the article. I think a few of these inventions that seem to defy the rules of physics need to be considered if there is at least a valid working model.

And then there are others that warrant thorough peer review. I just read a new article about a professor that claimed to have created table top cold fusion, was heavily criticized by peers and finally reprimanded.

On the other hand, the vortex engine article I posted seems to defy the laws of physics, but doesn't, and it works as proven by a working model. All traditional power plants have cooling towers, and all you have to do is retrofit those towers with turbines to become gigantic vortex engines substantially boosting the output of existing plants.