John Martinson, on 'Water Wars'
Describing free separation of saline waters and solar desalination.
John Martinson is a member of the University of Nevada at Reno
on the academic staff in charge of special projects.
The following companies are aggressively seeking inventions that are patented or patent pending.
1. Development company seeks innovative device concepts for Minimally Invasive Surgery, patented, patent pending
or just good ideas. ; Medtech Limited. Irish medical.
2. PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS Novelty, souvenir, toys, imprintable products wanted; Performance Promotions 3. Communication
Systems.; KDI Precision Products, Inc.
4. Housewares, Kitchen Accessories; DIY,
5. Plumbing, HVAC: The Rectorseal Corporation.
6. 12-Volt, RV and Automotive Products ; WirthCo Engineering, Inc.
7. Office Products; OfficePro, Inc.
8. Auto Aftermarket; Kraco Enterprises
by INVENTORS' DIGEST MAGAZINE
Handouts with full information will be available at NIA meetings.
Started at 9:05 AM Everyone introduce themselves, discussion of August Picnic.
BREAK 9:45 - 10:05 Dr. Torch on eyecom, first unit didn't work with ambient light second unit did, third unit made to connect to external devices, fourth unit was then made to work without wires (wireless)
BREAK 10:50 - 11:05 Dr Torch product licensees and leases talk.
11:45 Product evaluation- Alex Prokop a bicycle head light+turn light worn on the person.
End Meeting at 12:15
THE AMERICAN INVENTORS PROTECTION ACT OF 1999 H.R. 1907
We have just finished reviewing the Committee Print of Congressman Howard Coble's latest patent "reform" legislation and have compared it with H.R. 400 of the 105th Congress, and are convinced that nothing has really changed but the Titles (and one of the players). This proposed Act is nothing more, and nothing less, than a smoke screen to hide the deceitful intent of the legislation. This is bad law, and it can't be made good by swapping titles around and calling it what it isn't
. Title I. Inventors Rights This section is dedicated to regulating a single industry that preys upon a single group by making false promises and failing to keep them. A total lack of knowledge of the inventive community is frightfully apparent here. Inventors are a secretive lot. Not only do they keep their inventions secret; they also keep their failures and shortcomings secret. Probably only about five percent of those who fall prey to scam organizations ever come forward and openly admit that they were "taken." If they don't come forth and admit their gullibility, how is this kind of law going to protect them? The obvious intent is to make the small inventors feel that they will have Federal protection so they will stop objecting to the passage of legislation which will essentially dismantle a 210 year old system that has served them and this nation well. Congress should have learned, long ago, that there are simply some things that cannot be legislated, e.g., sobriety, brotherhood and morality, but it obviously has not. There is intelligent life outside the beltway, which if left to its own resources, will clean up the invention scam mess and put their operators out-of- business and perhaps in jail. The indictments handed down on May 18, to invention scam organizations, by the Federal Court, were not initiated by a government investigation. They were the direct result of the efforts of The United Inventors Association of the U.S.A. in cooperation with the appropriate federal agencies. We all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Bob Lougher for his efforts on our part
. Title II. First Inventor Defense This is a rehash of Bill Budinger's infamous "Defense to Infringement Based upon Prior Use." Under U.S. Patent Law, in order for an individual to qualify as a "first inventor," he must disclose the invention to the Patent Office, pay the fees and prosecute a patent application to allowance, pay some more fees, and eventually be issued a patent. The patent is his title to the invention. Also under U.S. law, the first-to-invent is the only one who is entitled the patent. An individual who operates under "Trade Secrets" has not fulfilled the requirements for inventorship in that he did not follow the above procedures to acquire ownership of, or title to, the invention
. An individual operating under trade secrets has not met the requirements and is, therefore, not entitled to any protection provided by the patent law. The entire concept of the patent law was to discourage the use of trade secrets in order to bring about an expansion of knowledge and technology, through agreement with inventors, that their technology would become a part of the public domain at the end of their patent term. A system that has worked well for 210 years. To even think otherwise is antithetical to every U.S. patent law ever enacted.
Title III. Patent Term Guarantee American inventors had a guaranteed patent term of seventeen years until the passage of the implementing legislation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Since June 8, 1995, the patent term runs, not 17 years from date of issue, but from 20 years from the date of filing. As there is no restriction on how long the Patent Office may dawdle over an application (frequently in excess of five years), the term of the patent is now indefinite. This has made it increasingly difficult to negotiate licenses and financing to produce and market new inventions.
Placing the decision as to length of term in the hands of the Patent Office, which often causes the delay, is not only unwise, it is foolhardy. The restriction of term is not required by the provisions of the Uruguay Round and should be rescinded.
The notorious Japanese invention, known as the "Submarine Patent," has been statistically proven to be so minuscule that its consideration is ludicrous
. Title IV. United States Publication of Patent Applications Published Abroad The confidentiality of the patent application is the principal reason for the strength of the U.S. patent system. In the event that an application for patent is granted, an abstract of the invention is published in the Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In the event that the application is not allowed and no patent is issued, the confidentiality remains intact. This allows the applicant (inventor) to refine and further develop his concept and refile a Continuation, Continuation-in-Part, or a Divisional Application in the hope that the refinements may cause allowance and the grant of a patent. Many current technologies and successful businesses are the result of such refilings
. The disclosure required for filing application for a U.S. patent must, by law, be so complete and detailed as to permit "one skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use the invention." That is to say, the inventor must file what amounts to a "blueprint" and instructions so that upon the publication of the patent, on the day on which the patent is issued, an individual with a desire or need to employ the invention, for his own personal use, may do so.
Conversely, the systems of other nations do not require detailed disclosure and drawings in the application, and as a consequence the inventor has little to lose upon publication, as he is simply disclosing a concept. (We have seen many foreign filings in which the inventor reveals only the concept, without any idea about how to make it work, and a sketch which appears to have been done on a paper napkin.).
Any publication of American patent applications prior to their date of issue must be restricted to only a simple abstract, without operational or functional details. To do otherwise openly invites the practice of patent piracy and is tantamount to American "technocide."
Title V. Patent Litigation Reduction Act. This is like leaving the fox to watch the hen house. Written in a language that only could be understood by a Philadelphia lawyer, it removes the settlement of patent disputes from the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and places it under the supervision of the very organization that brought about the disputes in the first place. If the Patent Office were to get out of politics and get back to really doing the job for which it was established (the issuance of patents) and do a thorough job at it, perhaps there would be less reason for litigation. The idea that the Patent Office should not be held accountable for its decisions relative to patentability is simply ridiculous! As the Patent Office is the only authority with the power to grant patents, is it now to be permissible that they are the only ones that can rule on the validity of their own work? The Patent Office has, by their own admission, "the World's largest technical library" within its halls. Why then can't they utilize that library to assure the validity of the patents that they issue? Failing this, are they to be allowed to rule on where the mistakes were made and make a judgment on which patents are valid and which are not? And, shall the person who makes the final "unappealable" decision be the one who affixed his signature to the patent under reexamination?
This Title should unquestionably be changed to "The Patent Lawyers Full- Employment Act." The procedures spelled out in this Title, the multiple filings and the fees associated therewith, to say nothing of the attorneys fees for these filings, will make the prosecution of a patent application seem like a walk-in-the-park. The very idea of allowing a third-party requester to seek to invalidate a patent on the basis of prior art which may not have even been known at the time of the grant of a patent is beyond the realm of belief and will certainly destroy the credibility of the United States patent system.
Title VI. Patent and Trademark Office.
The last 45 pages of this 104 page document are dedicated to empire-building in yet another attempt, to establish a framework in which a "corporatized" Patent Office may be established. It is simply a repeat of the attempts which have been made over the past several years to remove the Patent Office from congressional jurisdiction and oversight and create a "super-bureaucracy." Interestingly, the provisions, which we have vigorously opposed, which would allow the Office to wheel and deal and generally "do- its-own-thing"are still in there. Somebody really wants to build that "Taj Mahal."
It was refreshing to see, however, that the "Officers and employees of the Office shall be subject to the provisions of Title 5 relating to Federal employees," meaning that they can't just be "dumped" on a whim of the Commissioner (correction, "Director"). It was also delightful to learn that the Director will not be compensated in excess of the pittance paid the President. It is also interesting to note that the members of the "Advisory Committee" shall "be citizens of the United States" and "in no case shall members who represent small entity patent applicants constitute less than 25 percent of the members." Otherwise, it is essentially the same old song that we have heard before, with a few new eighth-notes thrown in to get the little guys to sing-along and a petri dish full of amendments to get the bio-tech people on board
In short, it's still the same bad idea that it's always been, and no amount of amending will make it a good idea. This is not a bill suitable for compromise. This vampire needs to be laid to permanent rest, with a stake driven through its heart, before it can suck the lifeblood out of America. This is Ken Addison's analysis of the legislation in the form in which it existed on May 20, 1999.
WASHINGTON WATCH by KEN ADDISON, JR.
from INVENTORS' DIGEST MAGAZINE
Page done by Vince Chemist.
Created August 12, 1999
Updated November 29, 2005