The Board of Patent Inquisitions

Link (pdf of proposed new rules)

Caption: If the Examiner is giving you the run around, you can come to us for relief.

HP exec (the "invent" co.) & Houston Paper not above Downright Lying to Texas Football Fans

According to an opinion written by HP exec Ted Clark:

The last major updating of our patent system was in 1952. Back then, no one had heard of The Beatles and a long-distance telephone call was considered "high-tech." Yet this same system [1952 Patent Act] is expected to perform in today's faster paced, technology-based economy.

The Fourth Estate (newspaper editorials) seems to have been taken over by a Corporate Ministry of Doublespeak Truth right out of 1984. So it is up to the Blogosphere to holler a good ole fashion "foul" when the paper downright lies to its underinformed readers. Democracy can't work if the people are repeatedly lied to.

According to one historical site {IP Mall}, there have been amendments to the 1952 Act every couple of years:

1954
1958
1959
1961
1962
1964
1965
1971
1972
1975
1980
1982
1983
1984 --Hatch Waxman add ons
1986
1988
1990-1994 (every year)
--Of these, the last two were for NAFTA and GATT (20 year term)
1995
1996
1998
1999-- The American Inventor's "Protection" Act, a major set of changes

For more misleading statements to the public, one can go here and see what Mr. Smith Goes to Washington says:

Arguably, it [Patent Reform 2007] represents the biggest change since the 1952 act was written. The subcommittee has undertaken such an initiative because the changes are necessary to bolster the U.S. economy and improve the quality of living for all Americans. The bill will eliminate legal gamesmanship in the current system that rewards lawsuit abuses over creativity. It will enhance the quality of patents and increase public confidence in their integrity. This will help individuals and companies obtain money for research, commercialize their inventions, expand their businesses, create new jobs and offer the American public a dazzling array of products and services that continue to make our country the envy of the world. All businesses, small and large, can benefit. All industries directly or indirectly affected by patents, including finance, high tech and pharmaceuticals, can also profit.

Reform Rationale Calls for Eradication of Human Race

A few bad apples are reason enough to remove the whole barrel according to certain pest control experts who wish to "reform" the 200 year old American patent system.

AP reporter Erica Werner warns her readers of the patent plague that confronts our nation. In a recent fair and blanched report she opens with the following line of plagiarized rhetoric:

Crustless peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches, a way to move sideways on a swing, a technique for exercising cats using a laser pointer - these are among the inventions patented in the United States over the years. Now Congress is trying to cut down on poor-quality or downright ridiculous patents, and at the same time adapt the patent system to a high-tech era in which computers and other electronic devices may contain thousands of patentable parts.

With millions of patents having been served out by the underfunded and overwhelmed US Patent Office, the enviro-friendly daft reporter has "discovered" all on her unbiased own the dastardly few patents that warrant eradication and total makeover of the whole system.

Of course, by that logic, it would make sense to exterminate the whole of the human race. After all, news reporters such as Erica are constantly uncovering examples of unsavory human beings. Does it not make sense to once and for all eliminate those pests as well? They pollute the air and poison the children. They commit crimes and lie, cheat and engage in acts of moral depravity.

And besides, if we leave alive a few independent inventors; why they might multiply and spread their contagious ideas around the whole world. Who wants free thinkers in an age of corporate mind control and global domination?

Today's Hipocracy

A copyrighted book entitled "Innovation Without Patents: Harnessing the Creative Spirit in a Diverse World" by Uma Suthersanen, et al. Amazon asking price: $100. The book suggests that IP laws are unnecessary for fostering creativity and innovation. However, the copyright page at the front of the book suggests that you will have your creative juices zapped by legal process if you creatively lift these authors' work product and palm it off as your own. (Another example of: What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine; or in short, hipocracy --rule by the hip and cool.)

Hat tip to IPBiz for raising the issue of economic enlightenment regarding innovation and its malcontents.

"Obvious to Try" is Oxymoronic and Fatally Flawed

Three hikers are heading back to town along an unfamiliar back country trail when one of them is bit by a snake. The other two fashion a tourniquet and makeshift a stretcher for transporting their mate quickly to town, to a doctor's office about 5 miles away.

Alas they come upon an unmarked fork in the trail. No sign arises from its dirt to explicitly point the way to the correct choice. Just a mail box stands there, in the middle of nowhere.

Amazingly, they hear singing coming up from behind them. An old man is moseying his way towards the lone mailbox, letter in hand and entertaining himself with an old folksong.

"Quickly old man, please tell us which path is the quickest way back to town. Time is of the essence."

"Wish I could help you," sighs the elderly gent, "but it's been a long time since I traveled beyond this mailbox. If I recall correctly --and I'm not sure-- one of these paths leads to nowhere, a dead end if you please. With the other it's about a half hour to town. You know what? The McGuiver sisters know the answer. They are identical twins and one of them is sure to be along any minute now to drop her letters off. Problem is, one of them always lies and the other always tells the truth. And neither is willing but to answer one question a day."

At this juncture the injured hiker raises himself from the stretcher and says, "Let me ask the one question, after all it is my life on the line."

What one question does he ask?

A hat tip to the Fired-Up Genius for resurrecting the issue of "obvious to try".

Why not try just any old path? Flip a coin. There is after all, a 50-50 chance of being right.

But then again, in our example, what is the "cost" of being wrong? It could mean one's life.

Before you poo pooh the issue as being a mere fantasy, consider the real life story of Silicon Valley entrepreneur, James Kim who tragically lost his life in December 2006 because his family had driven up the wrong "via". (Via means "path" in Latin. Ob-Via means to come upon the one path. In that case your next step forward is "Ob-Via-ous".

Oh.
As for the answer to the twin-sisters riddle, it's obvious. (Obvious in hindsight if someone told you the answer). One sister is an Inverter of the truth. The other is a double inverter. Hook up the three (3) inverters in series and you get a deterministic logical outcome. Familiar objects operating in predictable ways. In fact, we gave away part of the answer "three" as the very first word in the story. A person of ordinary intelligence would have seen that and would have combined it with the well known logical operative of "NOT".

The injured hiker asks: If I had asked your sister which road is the quickest way back to town, which way would she point, left or right? The lying sister would point to the wrong road because her sister would point to the right choice. The truth telling sister would point to the wrong road because her sister would lie and point to the wrong road. Simple logic ... in hindsight.

Provisionally Inaccurate

The urban legend continues in regard to provisional applications. One advice article (by an unknown author) puts it this way for its unwary readers:

Less expensive and easier to file than a full (non-provisional) patent application, a provisional application filing buys you time (up to 12 months) to figure out how to market your newest invention and raise much needed capital, while allowing you to claim ownership of the idea as of the date of the filing. Securing a priority filing date is critical because as far as the U.S. government is concerned, ownership rights go to the person who can prove he or she came up with the idea first.

Schlafly, Phyllis Fingers the Harm-my-Nation Deformists

http://www.bendweekly.com/Opinion/7534.html
Jun 22,2007
So-called patent reform cheats U.S. inventors
by Phyllis Schlafly

The globalists are making a new attempt to circumvent and weaken a right explicitly recognized in the U.S. Constitution: Americans' exclusive ownership of their own inventions.

Fortunately, Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., have exposed this mischief and called on Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to slow down and discuss the proposed legislation before making costly mistakes.

As we've learned with "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," we should all be on guard any time politicians patronize us with pompous talk about "reform." The so-called Patent Reform Act of 2007 is not reform at all; in one package, it betrays both individual rights and U.S. sovereignty.

It's no accident that the United States has produced the overwhelming majority of the world's great inventions. It's because the Founding Fathers invented the world's best patent system, which was a brilliant stroke of inspired originality when the Constitution was written in 1787, and still is stunningly unique in the world.
The political pressure for the new bill comes from the "world is flat" globalists who want to level the U.S. patent system with other countries. "Harmonization" is a favorite trigger word in their arguments.

For example, in introducing new bill, Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., said it will "harmonize U.S. patent law with the patent law of most other countries." The explanation of the bill issued by Leahy's office states that the bill's purpose is to eliminate "a lack of international consistency."

But because the U.S. system produces more important inventions than the rest of the world combined, why should we legislate "consistency" with inferior foreign policies?

The uniqueness of the American system is that "inventors" are granted "the exclusive right" to their inventions "for limited times" (usually about 18 years) after which the invention goes into the public domain. Exclusivity was assured because U.S. courts would uphold the inventor's patent against infringers, and the U.S. Patent Office would not disclose any information in a patent application unless and until the legal protection of a patent was granted. Rejected patent applications were returned to the applicants with their secrets intact.

The so-called patent "reform" of 1999 radically changed this to allow the U.S. Patent Office to publish the details of inventions 18 months after they are filed, unless the inventor agrees NOT to file a patent application in another country. Other countries do not respect inventors' rights granted by the U.S. Patent Office.

Inventors say the U.S. Patent Office is now taking an average of 31 months to grant a patent! So, when the Patent Office publishes (i.e., posts online) a patent application before a patent is granted, this gives patent pirates all over the world an average of 13 months (31 minus 18) to study detailed descriptions of virtually all U.S. patent applications, steal and adapt these new American ideas to their own purposes, and go into production.

Foreign governments, foreign corporations, and patent pirates are thus able to systematically "mine" U.S. patent applications and steal American-owned inventions. The 2007 "reform" bill's "harmonization" is a fraud because it does nothing to require or induce other countries to respect U.S. patents.

The unconscionable delay in processing patent applications resulted when Congress diverted the fees paid by inventors into pork and other pet projects. That meant the Patent Office could not hire the additional examiners it needed to process the rising number of domestic and foreign patent applications, and so a massive backload built up.

What recourse does the inventor have? If the infringer is in another country (China is a notorious thief of intellectual property), the U.S. inventor must have filed a patent application in that other country and the lawsuit must be filed there.

The proposed Patent Reform Act of 2007, sponsored by Sens. Leahy and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Reps. Berman and Lamar Smith, R-Texas, would further reduce inventors' rights. For the sake of "international consistency," it would convert the U.S. system to a "first to file" system, thereby replacing our unique and successful U.S. "first to invent" system.

The U.S. gives priority to the first one who actually invents something rather than to one who simply files papers about what he plans to invent. The change to "first to file" would create a race to the Patent Office and would severely disadvantage the small and independent inventors who lack the resources of big corporations.

Much more is wrong with the Patent Reform Act of 2007, but I've run out of space, so stay tuned.
- - -

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded "Supremacists." She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org.

Steppy note: OK. A constitutional law scholar she is not. But nonetheless Schlafly drills the emotional outrage into the minds and hearts of her ordinary readers.