-- "Tis better to have and not need than to need and not have." -- An Advertise-ment at a country Cemetery that was offering Gravesites
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > |
--> > "Five Resolutions to Up Your Sales In 2012, 2013, and 2014" --
:: :: :: Similarly to your selling your concept to someone for the first time, you have to get their immediate attention within your
-- Therefore, if I were you ..
1. When I made my invention I would have first figured out who would want it or who would need it? I would go
there to scout-out what they are doing 'without' my 'magic whatzis' and what reason I could give them that they
do need it.
2. I would have to be competitive to whatever they are presently using. My price has to be appealing. [Price makes the first
point in a sale--you have to get them to be able to afford it!]
3. What proof do I give them that my 'magic whatzis' works?: Testimonials!!
Track record of trials. Guarantees. My reputation.
4. My personality: A positive approach. Listen to their needs. Smile. Give them positive feedback.
If they don't need it, maybe they could recommend someone who does? Ask them for a lead
You are your best salesmen. You can't afford to hire anyone yet. You have to see the public and open doors.
Ask everyone for recommendations; who they know that would buy one?
It's hard, very hard, but it is your baby and you have to give it life.
You had good intentions on making your invention. Go to those who encouraged you and ask them for their support, like: testimonials on how they like you as a person - how your invention will better their lifestyle, how they will be a better person because of this. --
Keep at it using the knowledge gleaned and garnered from this website and you won't fail.
Robert Scheinkman, President/Director and Mentor of the IASL - Inventors Association of St. Louis
-- "Using the Power of Certainty to Drive Sales Success" --
-- When you can raise the bar on trust, you're much closer to that sale because now you're a trusted advisor. --
-- "Everyone is a genius at least once a year. The real geniuses simply have their bright ideas closer together." --
-- "Live all you can; it's a mistake not to. It doesn't so much matter what you do in particular, so long as you have your life. If you haven't had that what have you had?" --
"To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first, and whatever you hit call it the target." - Ashleigh Brilliant
-- Structuring A Partnership Agreement --
-- "To Beginning Inventors" --
-- "IP Education Center: Patent Examiners Are International Technology Historians" --
-- "For those unfamiliar with patent application and prosecution practice, the art and skill of the experienced patent professional is to write and prosecute claims which contain just enough limiting language to distinguish the invention over the prior art but not so much limiting language that the claims can be easily avoided by an infringer attempting to recreate the invention described in the claims. In the end, it comes down to proper selection of words and the use of the carefully selected words to craft phrases and the putting of the phrases together into a single sentence describing an invention which eventually becomes an allowed claim in an issued patent." --
Free Service to aid Inventors on Mfg
Finding Shops and Manufacturers for Manufacturers for Inventors to aid and consult in the building of their projects.
Posted by Rich Freese on August 03, 2002 at 03:27:14:
I offer a free service to find Shops and manufacturers for Inventors to get their product Prototyped or made.
I particularly work with shops that are trying to get a start and need the work.
Since they are start-ups, their prices are lower and this keeps the Inventors price down.
I've been working with the Edwardsville, Ill. Inventors and the Inventors Association of St. Lous for many years
and use them as my References. My approach is different in that I don't do any manufacturing myself.
When an Inventor
asks for help, I try to find shops that may have done similar work to the new Invention.
Not always am I successful, but I try to help.
Thanks - Rich Freese
fax # 314-631-6938
Representing: High Quality Tools
Acra Machinery - Fryer - CNC Machines - Menu
Entrepreneurs Free Manufacturing Consulting
I Draw Dreams
"Where Bright Ideas Come to Life"
My name is Brian Keast and I've recently opened a new business I've called,
"I Draw Dreams". It's a computed aided design (CAD) based company. I can
make a 3D virtual model of a part, assembly, fabrication project or invention,
that will then store information in the model itself. This information can be
extracted in the form of files for manufacturing or for drawings in pursuit of
a patent. I help inventors, fabricators and designers. I too am an inventor
And am pursuing my own designs. I understand that confidentiality is of the
utmost importance. I am simply here to supply drawings, manufacturing files,
or 3D model renderings for you to use to pursue your project.
If you're interested in learning more or think you may consider using my
services, please visit my website listed below or feel free to call, if you already
have someone who does this type of work for you, please disregard this letter,
As it is not my intention to push someone out of a job.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Brian M Keast>
-- What is Intellectual Property?
-- Webster's coins it as legal monopolies over creations of the mind,
both artistic and commercial. It is the ownership of your ideas,
the culmination of your ingenuity and the value of your dreams.
Our history is rich with intellectual property and from the conception of the wheel
to the first flicker of electricity, we are dependent on IP of the past,
and as we continually enter new stages of a technological world
we are becoming even more dependent on the IP of our future.
The rewards for properly managed IP are immeasurable,
as every idea has the potential to change the world."
-- Inventors Council of Cincinnati
-- "Directory Access to Finding Capital" --
-- "When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life;
now that I am old I know that it is." -- Oscar Wilde
Three buddies die in a car crash, and they find themselves at the pearly gates.
They are all asked, "When you are in your casket and friends and
family are mourning upon you, what would you like to hear them say
The first guy says, "I would like to hear them say that I was the
greates doctor of my time, and a great family man."
The second guy says, "I would like to hear that I was a wonderful
husband and school teacher who made a huge difference in our
children of tomorrow."
The last guy replies,
"I would like to hear them say... LOOK!!! HE'S MOVING!!!!!"
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -- Sam Levenson
-- 10 Simple Life Hacks You Can Do Right Now
---------> > How would you have answered?
Consider these Facts --> >
"Young people these days are encouraged to sometimes think 'out of the box'"--> >
"The creativity of the Inventor also goes beyond being sanely rational."
These are your questions below --> >
And below them will be found the student's answers:
Q1. In which battle did Napoleon die?
* his last battle
Q2. Where was the Declaration of Independence signed?
* at the bottom of the page
Q3. River Ravi flows in which state?
Q4. What is the main reason for divorce?
Q5. What is the main reason for failure?
Q6. What can you never eat for breakfast?
* Lunch & dinner
Q7. What looks like half an apple?
* The other half
Q8. If you throw a red stone into the blue sea, what will it become?
* It will become wet
Q9. How can a man go eight days without sleeping?
* He sleeps at night.
Q10. How can you lift an elephant with one hand?
* You will never find an elephant that has only one hand..
Q11. If you had three apples and four oranges in one hand and four
apples and three oranges in the other hand, what would you have?
* Very large hands
Q12. If it took eight men ten hours to build a wall, how long would
it take four men to build it?
* No time at all, the wall is already built.
Q13. How can you drop a raw egg onto a concrete floor without cracking it?
*Any way you want, concrete floors are very hard to crack.
The student received a 0% on the exam.
--------> > Would you have given a 100% Grade for him answering this perfectly? - Why? - Was he that wrong?
Let us just say:
a) "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."
- said by Wm Shakespere
b) "You can't fight City Hall."
c) "In any selection of one out of four answers, pick the third one [c)] and you'll have a 60% chance of being right."
d) "If not, You'll have to dance to the Tune of the Piper."
There was a typo on a test I was taking. Instead of "(D) none
of the above," it said "(D) one of the above." So I circled
The Sore Thumb Award
-- It's a jungle out there and as soon as you begin making money from your own invention, someone will pounce on you to try to take it away... [Watch "Shark Tank" to see why.]
-- What I am about to tell you should become obvious to one and all, and that is: - We all forget important dates and decisions.
-- So, I'm telling you about The Inventors' Diary. - Some call it the Inventor's Notebook or Log-book. - The Diary is Your Proof that You Invented Your Invention. ---> >
-- There are several ways to look at what I am saying. - On the one hand, there are those 'listing' calendars with spaces for you to jot-down notes. There are also Daily Reminder books with pages guiding you.
In addition there are:
1. **Having a secret journal - your own personal diary that is kept locked away and hidden from others.
2. A secretarial notebook with your own personal secretary writing it down from your dictation.
3. And within a company, the taking of corporate business minutes. The legal proof of management decisions.
4. Of course: Possessing a nagging spouse (or a loving soul-mate ;-) who is keeping track for you. They will make sure and do the writing down. :-)
5. And you may even have a very good head on your own shoulders for remembering unwriten minute details?
Though, when you screw-up, you possibly can or can't do over what you did wrong that first time. :-(
Try to write it down within the moment it occurs.. or,
this will cost you both time and money.
-- Without good habits of keeping records, you may be found running-in-place and getting nowhere.
And, yeah.. You can and will be apologetic and try to make excuses to others about why you failed and why you are a loser.
--> The chiseler will try to break your patent and steal your invention by proving to the courts that you were not the *FIRST TO INVENT..the genius of your invention.. You should save those proofs that you were the first to invent..by keeping good verifiable dated records.
-- So let's do that!! - In this day and age, you have the gadgets and forethought to become a winner... Moving straight foreward and protecting your rear-end with written documental proof. :-))
[ INVENTORS NOTE: *On June 23, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives approved by recorded vote, 304 to 117, H.R.1249, "The America Invents Act" that changes our system of U.S. Patent Law from FIRST TO INVENT to FIRST
TO FILE. -- President Barach Obama approved it on September 16, 2011. ] -- "America Invents Act Signing"
** For those who want a bare-bones Diary:
a. Buy from a stationary store a ledger book that has spaced lines and one sealed or bound edge within its cover. [A looseleaf notebook won't do for your Diary.]
b. At the very top of the 1st page, write readably the Name that you have given your Invention. Put the date and time of day next to this Name.
c. Begin describing your invention. Everything about it; what inspired you to invent it.
d. Write down what you are doing to get this invention into the market place?
-- Everytime you think about it (at least once a day and weekly) keep writing factual information down...the things that you can't afford to forget. - IT'S A DIARY!!
The USPTO will accept this contemporaneous journal as proof!
-- Listen to me.. Get in the habit of keeping an Inventor's Diary / Inventor's Notebook - the Inventor's Document of Proof.
e. Less I forget to tell you: Continue your Diary to both sides of your page. If you make a big-booboo mistake, x-it out and initial it. Be consistant with your writing. Try to write legibly. Anything added that is squeezed in draws suspicion, so write it first out on one paper that can be edited and then duly transfer the final edification to your Diary. Be sure to destroy the test write-ups! -- Number Diary pages, front and back side. Unwritten upon large areas should be X-edited out.
-- Get two friends that you can trust, who will get no monetary value for doing this. They will witness your Diary about once a month. They will sign and date the following statement each time they read your updated diary, under the last sentence of your latest Diary entry:
"I have read and understood the preceding information."
-- "Patents & Trademarks - Oklahoma State University Library"
The Patent and Trademark Resource Center at Oklahoma State University is a
partner with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to support the intellectual ..."
-- Get It In Writing by Matthew Yubas
- I want to pass on a mistake made by an inventor. He told me he met with a representative who said that he would help get his product into a number of markets. After a handshake and product samples, the inventor has not heard back from this representative. Phone calls and emails and still no response. The inventor admits he is not really sure what this representative was supposed to do for him.
- Anything having to do with your invention is a business transaction. If you meet with someone who says they are going to do something for you, get it in writing. If money is to be exchanged, be very clear what you will receive in return and when.
- Some people say they don’t want to appear to be too pushy. Developing and marketing an invention is business and not personal. At a minimum, after a meeting, summarize what each of you agreed to do and then email the notes to the other person. Ask if your summary accurately reflects what you discussed. Make sure your summary covers who does what as well as the expected dates of completion.
-- Success Story
An inventor called me and said he lost the templates CD from my Invention Success Kit. I told him I would replace the templates. Then he told me that he followed the steps in my Invention Success Kit and as a result got his product into Walmart. He met with a local Walmart manager and they loved his product but wanted better packaging. After several discussions and 7 months later his SmartiTag product appeared in their stores.
-- Success Story
An inventor I had been coaching received a licensing deal for his jewelry accessory product. The company is in the process of refining his invention. This January the product will be test marketed in several Bed Bath and Beyond stores. If the product sells well, they will expand to more stores.
-- Book available
The popular book “Product Idea to Product Success” now in its 5th printing, is back in stock. Not only is the book used as college textbook, it’s been read in 14 countries. Please see the information page for details and special offer on the order page.
-- "PRODUCT COACH:/ Invention Resources" --
-- "Those who do not remember the past are condemed to repeat it." -- George Santayana
-- "12 things that will be cheaper in 2011" --
-- "BBC NEWS | Technology | Ask rolls out search privacy tool" --
-- --> TREASURE HUNT OF A LIFETIME
-- --> By your attending our IASL meetings and attending our one-on-one sessions - after hearing our Guest Speaker
- and receiving this on-line newsletter, "The Big Idea," - you will amass valuable information on the inventive process.
-- "Business Plan: Intro" --
-- "Entrepreneur, business - Minding Your Business"
-- "Think Like an Entrepreneur - AOL Small Business"
-- "Use Your Dream Team to Advance Your Career" --
-- Unforgettable Parties Without Breaking the Bank --
-- "Join Suzi Tozer and a slew of party professionals from around the world as they share inspired tips and trends and the secrets on how to avoid the disasters to make your event something your guests will talk about for years to come."
-- "5 Strategies for Implementing Social Media into Your Organization" -- "One major retailer did this and had a $3 million bottom line improvement during an economic recession. This company never opened social media sites to its employees before. Now they're a believer in the power of social media marketing."
--> "If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door." --
--> If God brings you to it, He'll bring you through it..............
--> Read this...I mean REALLY read this..
-- There's some mighty fine advice in these words, even if you're not superstitious. This has been sent to you for good luck
from the Anthony Robbins organization. It has been sent around the world ten times so far:
ONE. Give people more than they expect and do it cheerfully.
TWO. Marry a man/woman you love to talk to. As you get older, their conversational skills will be as important as any other.
THREE. Don't believe all you hear, spend all you have or sleep all you want.
FOUR. When you say, 'I love you,' mean it.
FIVE. When you say, 'I'm sorry,' look the person in the eye.
SIX. Be engaged at least six months before you get married.
SEVEN. Believe in love at first sight.
EIGHT. Never laugh at anyone's dream. People who don't have dreams don't have much.
NINE. Love deeply and passionately. You might get hurt but it's the only way to live life completely.
TEN. In disagreements, fight fairly. No name calling.
ELEVEN. Don't judge people by their relatives.
TWELVE. Talk slowly but think quickly.
THIRTEEN. When someone asks you a question you don't want to answer, smile and ask, 'Why do you want to know?'
FOURTEEN. Remember that great love and great achievements involve great risk.
FIFTEEN. Say 'bless you' when you hear someone sneeze.
SIXTEEN. When you lose, don't lose the lesson!
SEVENTEEN. Remember the three R's: Respect for self; Respect for others; and responsibility for all your actions.
EIGHTEEN. Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship.
NINETEEN. When you realize you've made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it.
TWENTY. Smile when picking up the phone... The caller will hear it in your voice.
TWENTY-ONE. Spend some time alone.
"I think I might have worked out why people are anxious and it has almost nothing to do with the economy.
People are anxious because they don’t know what’s coming next.
It’s not reality but uncertainty and volatility that’s the problem.
People want a view of what lies ahead. A narrative if you like.
-- If instead of trying to individually predict the future we could collectively decide
which direction we’d all like to travel in, I think the world would be a better place." - author unknown
"Today, it is well understood that stress is everywhere, and felt by everybody. The idea that respite is only a concern for a
father is outdated. Moms, dads, and kids all need a place to unwind that sometimes a bedroom just doesn't fulfill. It is good
to have a room in the house where anyone who needs to be alone can do so."
-- -- What is it with you? Is it that your cup is half empty or is it that your cup is half full?
There is a difference! When your cup was full, you drank it down to half full. You were on your way to an empty cup. --
-- -- When your cup was half filled, you were looking for your full-share cup. What would you rather have?
-- I see, it's six of one and a half dozen of the other? :-)
-- -- May the IASL fill your cup?
-- Metal Casting Advice by Rich Freese --
-- "Pessimists look at a glass that is 50% full and say it is half empty. -- Optimists look at it and say that it is half full.
-- Machinists look at it and understand the glass is twice as big as it needs to be." -- Rich Freese
-- "Some say the glass is half full, some half empty. I just wanted to know who drank my water!" --
--> --> Definitely talk to Rich @ --> email@example.com - (Rich Freese) ARCH CITY SERVICE - 314-638-1227 - 1-800-746-9550
-- “A Florida man was run over by his own truck after his dog put the truck in gear. First, it looked like an accident
but it turns out the dog was texting.” -- Jay Leno
-- --> "The Most Important Key to Successful Inventing"
-- --> "A smart inventor will build a team as soon as possible. The four principal team members will be you, a patent attorney, a manufacturing expert and a marketing expert."
-- "Market Launchers newsletter: THE ONLINE INVENTOR archives" --
-- -- We may not have it all together but together we have it all. --
-- "www.overstock.com" -- "www.angieslist.com" --
-- "Missing Money Free Search for Unclaimed Property - Officially endorsed By The States" --
-- "Email Marketing Solutions from Constant Contact" --
-- "The Skandalaris Center for Entrepreneurial Studies"
-- -- "Lord! We know what we are, but we know not what we may be." -- William Shakespear
-- -- "When asked, become a 'Product Developer' rather than say that you are an Inventor. --- You will get a much better feedback and that may help you insulate your ego a bit." -- James E. White --
-- Paul Niemann runs MarketLaunchers.com, building web sites for inventors and small businesses. Visit www.marketlaunchers.com
... CLEVER QUOTE OF THE WEEK ...
-- “If you could kick the person in the pants who is responsible for most of your trouble, you wouldn't sit for a month” – Theodore Roosevelt
-- Getting through to the decision maker
when you decide to license on your own - By Jack Lander of www.Inventor-mentor.com
-- One of the stumbling blocks to licensing on your own is getting your proposal into the hands of the decision maker. Typically, it must pass the eagle eye of the legal department
in the larger companies. Or it may be reviewed by an outside law firm if submitted to midsize and small companies. In any event, all companies with any degree of sophistication have been warned by their lawyers not to review any proposal from an inventor unless the inventor signs an agreement to surrender all rights except those granted by his or her patent.
-- Thus, the first step in dealing with any company is to phone and ask if it has an agreement form that must be signed before submitting a new-product proposal. Review it. Have your patent attorney review it if in doubt. Sign it, make two copies, return one as directed, and send one along with your prototype to show that you’ve done your homework.
-- Now, you’re ready to deal with the decision maker. Who is that? The Director of Marketing in a large corporation, the President in a small corporation. If in doubt, send your proposal to the Director of Marketing. Phone the company, and ask for the correct spelling and title of the director of marketing. Never send to a title alone -- always a name and title.
-- Why not send it to the legal department? Because it may be routed to the Engineering Department for a technical review if it is a tech product. That can be the kiss of death. If your invention is really valuable, and the company should be interested, the engineers may, due to jealousy, may find imaginary flaws in it.
-- One of the horror stories we hear too often is that of a prototype being lost within the company. More often, the prototype gathers dust on someone’s desk while he or she contemplates its fate. Six months can pass, or even a year before you get a decision, a few days of which was actual review and decision making time, and the rest merely failure to prioritize.
-- Thus, be sure to get the name of the person who will be your internal contact, and get a promised date of resolution. We have found that a secretary or administrative assistant is most valuable as an internal contact. They often act as “gatekeepers” for their bosses. But when you enlist them as allies, and don’t try to take a shortcut around them, you’ll usually get what you want. So, ask if the Director of Marketing’s secretary can take on the task of answering for your prototype.
-- In any case, you can’t afford to let your prototype languish in the hands of one company. Take the initiative, and offer to leave your prototype for 30 days without charge, and after that you will invoice the company at a rate of $100 a day (set your own figures here of course) to maintain its “right of first refusal.”
-- Another possibility is to make several prototypes, and send them to a number of companies’ simultaneously. If you do this, be forthright about it, and tell each company what you have done, but don’t reveal the names of the other companies. This has the advantage of forcing a timely decision. And if a company really sees merit in your invention as a product for its customers, it won’t resent the multiple submissions.
-- Even though you’ve done everything right, and you know for certain that customers will buy your invention when it becomes a product, the majority of your submissions will be rejected. This has little to do with the merits of your invention, and more to do with politics. It’s safe to reject, and risky to license. It has been said that four out of five new products taken to market by large companies fail. Why would an executive want to risk his reputation on a failure that is likely to be his new-product venture’s fate?
-- What is the antidote to rejection? Quantity. Licensing is a numbers game. Whether dealing one-by-one, or several submissions in parallel, you may have to go to 25 or more companies before you land your licensee. Persistence is key. Sales persistence is not the strong suit of most creative people, inventors included. But the serious inventor will promise himself that he will see the venture through to its successful end. It’s not walking a mile barefoot over broken glass after all. It’s simply taking each “no” as being one step closer to the ultimate “yes.”
# # #
-- Jack Lander is a mentor to inventors, as well as a seasoned inventor with 13 patents and always working on more. His most commercially successful patents are assigned to U.S. Surgical Corporation. Jack served as President of the United Inventors Association and is presently the Vice President of the Yankee Invention Exposition. He has been a feature columnist in Inventors' Digest magazine for the past 14 years writing the "Lander Zone." He is a published author of "How to Finance Your Invention or Great Idea," "All I Need Is Money," and more than 50 special reports for inventors. He has a wealth of knowledge and experience to guide you, and his newest book is entitled: Marketing Your Invention: a complete guide to licensing, and to marketing and selling your invention. His web site is www.inventor-mentor.com
-- "WalMart Secrets" --
-- The US has a first to invent system and therefore, recognizes the date of invention when determining which inventor invented first. All other countries have a first to file system which rely on the filing date of the application to determine which inventor was the first to file and therefore, entitled to a patent. |
-- Let’s Play the Patent Legislation Card game
** ** PLEASE SPREAD THE MESSAGE **
Teetering in the balance, hanging by the barest of threads, are your inventor rights, and the rights of future generations of inventors and citizens born in the USA, to create, invent and benefit/profit from their/your inventions and intellectual property. This issue is really that serious.....
-- The Latest USPTO Update
- August 20, 2007 -- "Claims and Continuations Practice - Final Rule" --
--> Patent Reform Act of 2007 --
-- "Patent System's Revamp Hits Wall" --
PATENT REFORM ACT OF 2007:
There are two bills under the title of the "Patent Reform Act of 2007" that are being voted on right now in Congress.
One already passed the House, bill H.R. 1908, and the other one is in the Senate and is on the verge of being voted on anytime, now. The Senate's version of the same bill is titled S. 1145 and all indicators look like it will pass.
The rights granted to "individuals" as stated in the U.S. Constitution will be expunged.
The U.S. Constitution, signed on September 17, 1787, states in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 that Congress shall have the power: "to promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
The patent laws regarding how individuals will obtain patents and the patent process are being fundamentally changed which will impede independent inventors. This is being done with little or no input from inventors, inventor organizations, or the invention community at large.
KILL BILL S. 1145:
With a couple of mouse clicks and a few minutes of your time, you could make the pivotal difference (the tipping point can be as few as 100 people contacting their senators to turn the tide) to Kill Bill: S. 1145. I've made this really easy for you to reply to your Senators, e.g.,
McCaskill, Claire- (D - MO) Class I
717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
David Toomey handles patent matters;
Blunt, Roy - (R - MO) Class III
B40C DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
Downey Palmer handles patent matters
and Senator Richard J. Durbin : Illinois; I've created a sample email guide/outline, and an EZ, simple and quick way to find your Senators and congressmen. This information can be found at the INVENTORS' VOICE TM blog at inventorsvoice.blogspot.com
Any one of the issues in bill "S. 1145", alone, would be a major change to the U.S. patent system that could negatively affect inventors from being granted a patent. Many of the proposed changes in the two bills are tied-in to the worldwide "first-to-file" system. This first-to-file "package of issues" , along with the infringement issues, will destroy the intrinsic incentives and original intention of the U.S. 200-year old patent system, the U.S. "First-to-Invent" which favors the creator i.e. inventor.
ELIMINATING THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD:
If you've ever played tennis, it would be as if the inventor's side of the tennis court was designed on a pitch (a slant), but multinationals would have a normal level court. Who do you think is going to win the tennis match when the court has been designed with the idea that it's not a level playing field With these proposed bills, this is what would happen - the gutting of the U.S. patent system.
PLEASE TAKE ACTION NOW!:
You must make your voice heard NOW in order to stop the bills. This is TIME SENSITIVE. Your action is needed NOW! INVENTORS' VOICE TM blog at inventorsvoice.blogspot.com
PLEASE SPREAD THE MESSAGE:
This issue affects all citizens, not just inventors, as well as future generations. Even if someone you know isn't an inventor today, everybody gets ideas at some point in their life. It's important to maintain the rights of the inventor, which was written into the U.S. Constitution by our forefathers, for all Americans.
Email your mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, relatives, friends, etc. to spread the word through an email viral approach. If you have any questions at all, feel free to email us and we'll get back to you as soon as we're able to.
Stephen Paul Gnass
-- "A Hollywood inventor protests the patent bill - Jul. 3, 2007" --
-- It is a proposal to dramatically diminish a constitutionally protected right by fundamentally altering America's patent system. AMERICAN PATENT LAW (110-h20070904-56) --
-- "U.S. CAN'T AFFORD TO MAR INOVATION - Proposed patent reforms mean less protection for the underdog." --
-- "The patent act is a cheat on Americans" by Phyllis Schlafly --
-- "So-called patent reform cheats U.S. inventors"
by Phyllis Schlafly --
-- "IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND
THE ONE EYED MAN IS KING”
By George Margolin -- an American Inventor --
-- "Media Advisory, 08-05" --
-- "sen mccaskill paper_2.doc" --
-- Update: April 10, 2008:
About a quarter past 10 AM today Senator Arlen Specter (R) announced on
Cspan that so called Patent Reform legislation was being held hostage
over the judicial nominees. Yesterday he withdrew his support for the
Patent Reform bill.
During the last session of Congress the Republican party faced a no win
situation with patent reform. Today the Democrats also face a no win
situation with Patent Reform due to labor's growing opposition.
I have to take my hat off to whoever conceived of this tactic to dump
Patent Deform legislation. It is brilliant and I am more than a bit
peeved that I did not think of this.
Everyone gets rid of a hot potato and in the process the Republicans
gain leverage in addition to getting rid of a bill which no one except a
handful of legislators who have milked the Coalition for Patent fairness
& Piracy really wants.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.patentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased
founder Paul Heckel
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
-- Update: April 10, 2008
-- "Senator Reid announced about 6:30 PM on the Senate floor that due to the disagreement on the bill that it will not be addressed this session."
Ronald J. Riley
-- "InventorsEye | Feb 2010 -- "4. First inventor is a false debate
There is a big misconception regarding “First Inventor To File” and I want to clear it up. The new process is not a “First To File” system; it is a “First Inventor To File” system and that is an important distinction. There has been concern in the independent inventor community that the new process will make it easier for an interloper to learn of your invention and beat you to the patent office with an application. Under the “First Inventor To File” system there is no risk of this happening because the interloper is not an inventor. All filers have to sign an oath and declaration under penalty of criminal sanctions."
-- "Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - S.23 - All Information - THOMAS (Library of Congress)" --
-- "http://www.inventstl.org/bobsch/Topics/BILLS-112s23is.pdf" --
-- "I always like to point out that harmonization is fine, but why can’t we do what makes for a good system and not just what everyone else does. Lets harmonize what the world does better and lets lobby the world to adopt what our system clearly gets right."
-- "In short, I see no reason why we cannot have a first inventor to file system that does away with Interference proceedings, awards patents to the first inventor who files a patent application but which also preserves a 12 month grace period under current law." -- Written by Gene Quinn
President & Founder of IPWatchdog, Inc.
Patent Attorney, Reg. No. 44,294
Posted: February 27, 2011 @ 12:24 pm
-- "Protect Small-Business Innovation - Oppose Patent Reform!" --
-- "Analyzing Patent Reform Chances and the First to File Provisions | IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law" --
-- "Patent Docs: Boundy Issues Call to Arms on America Invents Act" --
-- "YouTube - The America Invents Act will harm America - 2011 Patent Reform" --
http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform
-- "A patent reform act that?s NUTS | Sane Patent Reform" --
-- "Government Patent Bill H.R.1249 « AOIA.org" --
The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Bills, Resolutions > Search Results
Bill Summary & Status
112th Congress (2011 - 2012)
Latest Title: America Invents Act
Sponsor: Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21]
(introduced 3/30/2011) Cosponsors (5)
Related Bills: H.RES.316, H.R.243, S.23, S.139
Latest Major Action: 6/23/2011
Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On
passage Passed by recorded vote: 304 -
117 (Roll no. 491).
Latest Action: 6/23/2011 The Clerk was authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1249.
House Reports: 112-98 Part 1
AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO MAKE CORRECTIONS IN ENGROSSMENT OF H.R. 1249, AMERICA INVENTS ACT -- (House of Representatives - June 23, 2011)
[Page: H4505] GPO's PDF
--- Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1249, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, the insertion of appropriate headings, and the insertion of the word ``written'' in the appropriate place in the instruction in amendment No. 1 to strike material on lines 23 through 25 on page 114.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
"Leahy-Smith America Invents Act" -- IMPLEMENTATION
"..the USPTO would like to proactively engage with the public to best prepare for the timely and effective implementation of the legislation should it be enacted."
From: Bruce Burdick
Subject: Re: HR 1249 endgame
Date: Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:21 AM
Leahy is pushing for the Senate to just adopt HR1249. Blunt is our enemy and is supporting FTF and Big Business.
McCaskill is our enemy on FTF as she is following the Administration's lead. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-31
What do you hope to gain talking to Blunt or McCaskill or their staffers, except possibly status ? You don't really think you are going to change their votes do you?
Your "source" is missing the best mode information on the best mode provision of HR1249. Section 15 of HR1249 would eliminate failure to disclose best mode as a basis for invalidity or unenforceability. That heavily favors big business, particularly Big Software, which is much more likely to have lots of modes and which routinely chose secrecy for their best modes when patentability of software was in question. Big Software knows it concealed its preferred versions and disclosed mostly third rate versions. In fact, Section 15 of HR1249 is part of Big Software trying to avoid attacks on their patents for their choice of trade secrecy for their best software inventions. This distortion of the current law proposed by big business hugely favors Big Software, which is why it is in this bill. It won't aid patent applicants, it will aid Big Software patent enforcers and Big Software defendants in patent infringement cases. As I read it, it does not modify 35 USC 112. It merely takes that grounds of attack on a patent out of the hands of an infringement defendant and out of a re-exam since Big Software is at risk of losing many of their patents on the basis of failure to disclose best mode because Big Software routinely hid the best mode and protected it instead by trade secrecy. Big Software needs this loophole because if they are able to use secret prior art as a defense to patent infringement, they want to be able to disclose the best modes they kept secret without losing their patents when the secret prior art they use as a defense is the undisclosed best mode of one of their patents, as it will very likely be. Otherwise, they will have to kill their own patents to defeat third party patents. To say this may favor patent applicants shows lack of understanding of what is really going on with this bill.
BURDICK LAW FIRM, 3656 Western Ave., Alton, IL 62002
www.burdlaw.com 618-462-3450 Fax 618-208-1712
My email policy is posted at
S23 passed Senate 95-5 on 3/10/2011, HR 1249 passed House 304-117 on 6/21/2011
"America Invents Act" - dramatic change of US patent law into first to file system
Adjust your patent strategy accordingly!
-- "U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
Date: Wednesday, September 7, 2011 10:18 AM" --
-- "Two-Minute Survey" --
From: Charles McCloskey
Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 5:10 PM
Look what Congress put into the statute:
“”SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress that converting the United States patent system from ‘‘first to invent’’ to a system of ‘‘first inventor to file’’ will promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries and provide inventors with greater certainty regarding the scope of protection provided by the grant of exclusive rights to their discoveries.
SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress that converting the United States patent system from ‘‘first to invent’’ to a system of ‘‘first inventor to file’’ will improve the United States patent system and promote harmonization of the United States patent system with the patent systems commonly used in nearly all other countries throughout the world with whom the United States conducts trade and thereby promote greater international uniformity and certainty in the procedures used for securing the exclusive rights of inventors to their discoveries.””
Congress overtly put the writing on the wall for what they have done.
Charles C. McCloskey, LLC
636-527-9962 fax 314-786-1201
13321 N. Outer 40 Rd. Ste. 100
Town & Country, MO 63017
HR 1249 passed 9/8 by Senate. Look for signing ceremony date next. America Invents Act - dramatic change of US patent law into first to file system
Adjust your patent strategy accordingly!
Cc: Robert Scheinkman, Steve
From: Bruce Burdick
Subject: Re: HR1249
Date: Friday, September 16, 2011 11:28 PM
Chuck, what Congress was doing with that language is trying to prevent the law from being declared unconstitutional by misquoting the language of Art. 1, Sec.8, Clause 8 of the Constitution for what they are doing. That is because Leahy knows that "inventor" in the Constitution meant true inventor not first to file. They hope to confuse the Supreme Court by deliberately lieing and stating the opposite.
So, Leahy's staffers put this crap in to try to deceive the Courts and get them to uphold the law against a likely constitutional challenge. To me it was a mistake for them to add the BS about FTF giving greater certainty of scope. Anyone who knows much at all about patent claims knows whether you cheat the true inventor or reward the true inventor has nothing to do with scope of coverage but rather just with who gets the patent. As we know, scope is determined by the patent claims at the end of the patent, not the name on the front page. This just makes it obvious Congress did not know what it was doing. I hope that backfires.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Charles McCloskey wrote:
Look what Congress put into the statute:
“”7 (o) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Con8
gress that converting the United States patent system
9 from ‘‘first to invent’’ to a system of ‘‘first inventor to
10 file’’ will promote the progress of science and the useful
11 arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclu12
sive rights to their discoveries and provide inventors with
13 greater certainty regarding the scope of protection pro14
vided by the grant of exclusive rights to their discoveries.
15 (p) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the
16 Congress that converting the United States patent system
17 from ‘‘first to invent’’ to a system of ‘‘first inventor to
18 file’’ will improve the United States patent system and
19 promote harmonization of the United States patent system
20 with the patent systems commonly used in nearly all other
21 countries throughout the world with whom the United
22 States conducts trade and thereby promote greater inter23
national uniformity and certainty in the procedures used
24 for securing the exclusive rights of inventors to their dis25
Congress overtly put the writing on the wall for what they have done.
Charles C. McCloskey, LLC
636-527-9962 fax 314-786-1201
13321 N. Outer 40 Rd. Ste. 100
Town & Country, MO 63017
HR 1249 passed 9/8 by Senate. Look for
signing ceremony date next.
America Invents Act - dramatic change of
US patent law into first to file system
Adjust your patent strategy accordingly!
BURDICK LAW FIRM, 3656 Western Ave.,
Alton, IL 62002
firstname.lastname@example.org www.burdlaw.com 618-462-
3450 Fax 618-208-1712
My email policy is posted at
-- "Inventors Eye: America Invents Act Signed Into Law" --
-- "http://www.inventstl.org/bobsch/Topics/fee_setting_timeline.pdf" --
America Invents IP Blog
Intellectual Property in the Age of First to FileThe Burdick Law Firm – virtually better RSS
PTO Proposes Further Fee Increase
While this is another big fee boost proposal, it does for the first time list the proposed Micro Entity fees which the PTO has been stalling while concentrating on large entity issues.
The filing, search, & exam fee for a standard utility patent application would be:
Large Entity: A 47% jump from $1250 to $1840 with no penalty for filing in paper
Small Entity (<500 employees): a 55% jump from $530 to 820 if done online, with $100 penalty for filing in paper
Micro Entity (<5 employees): new category at $410 if done online, which is 55% higher than what it would have been had it been introduced when the statute specified back on 2011-09-16 with $50 penalty for filing in paper.
So large entities get a smaller percentage increase and still do not pay penalties for filing in paper. The PTO under David “IBM” Kappos caters to fat cats, and this is proof.
Next the Fast Track For Fat Cat process is reduced from $4800 to $4000 for, so it costs fat cats less to bypass small and micro entities. Further proof of PTO favoritism to big business.
One large change is reduction of the issue fee from $1740 to $960 which would not occur until next year. Reduction of issue fee primarily favors big business, but makes sense as issuance does not really cost so much now that patents are primarily issued electronically rather than in paper.
Some big cost items are the prices of reviews, which for exparte reviews go up by 600% to $19,700, supplemental examination, at $7000 to file and $20,000 if conducted, and the cost of the new post grant review, which is so high that it is strictly a rich man’s sport ($35,800-125,300). Still, that should be much, much less than the corresponding savings in litigation costs. It is not clear than small entities will be able to afford to do these.
Maintenance fees also increase dramatically, even though the PTO has negligible cost to process a maintenance fee, as the PTO tries to push a larger percentage of cost onto those with successful patents and to discourage patentees from keeping patents that are not generating revenue.
The price of patents is getting so high that it has become a rich man’s sport, so small independent inventors can only play if their patent is generating sufficient value to justify large expenditures, both in maintenance and enforcement.
Posted in Uncategorized
PTO now trying PR stunts to divert focus from its “Fat Cats First” programs.
The PTO is feeling the pressure from entrepreneurs to change its focus from Fat Cats to humanity. Here is a publicity stunt where the PTO will award expedited processing on up to 50 inventions that help the poor.
Wonder what percentage of these awards will end up being given to IBM and other Fat Cats? Here is a clue “The pilot program encourages businesses of all kinds to apply their patented technology to addressing the world’s humanitarian challenges. “Best guess, 90% go to Fat Cats so the PTO has about 5 to highlight while giving most awards to Fat Cats, researchers from academia and Federal labs since “Judging will be performed by researchers from academia and Federal labs” rather than by representatives of humanity and the poor. Besides, why should it be limited to 50 when 10,000 awards are available for purchase by Fat Cats? Answer: Because it is just a PR stunt.
Posted in Uncategorized
NY Times notes Problems with AIA (America Invents Act of 2011)
Here is a new article which highlights the problems of the Anti-Inventor Act of 2011, including First to File (so big business can get there first and steal inventions from small businesses while small businesses learn the patent system and figure out too late they needed to file fast, very fast), Fast Track For Fat Cats (so big business can jump priority over small inventors and get patents in a year or less while small inventors wait years for theirs) and Post Grant Review (so big business can drive up enforcement costs and steamroll small inventors and thereby more easily steal inventions)
Posted in Uncategorized
Is America Losing Its Startup Edge?
Apparently the US is slipping dramatically. See this article from TechDirt
And how far have we slipped, to 23rd it appears says an article that states that in New Zealand, there are 9 times as many startups per unit population (27 vs. 3 per thousand people) attributes the decline to lack of a safety net for startup failures.
Add to that the huge increase in cost slapped on startups by the new, misnamed, America Invents Act (HR 1249) or “AIA” for short, which distorted the US Patent system heavily in favor of big business and decreased the safety net for startups and increased the risk of failure and the investment needed. The AIA could more properly be labeled the Anti-Inventor Act of 2011, because it hurts small business as the National Small Business Association has clearly said.
We have been blogging against this legislation for years, but when it comes to legislation, every American knows we have the worst Congress money can buy where Congressmen spend most of their time fundraising by promising special favors to special interest fat cats in return for campaign “donations” that are not really donations but purchases of special favors and special consideration in special interest legislation.
Posted in Uncategorized
Six strikes and you’re out! Online downloaders being denied service by ISPs
I am pleased to see the new multi-strike service shut-off anti-p2p strategy being adopted (see http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/major-isps-agree-to-six-strikes-copyright-enforcement-plan.ars) , which is much less draconian than the prior technique of letting outfits like US Copyright Group and other less well known contingent fee copyright enforcement lawyers to send out mass extortion letter (see the responsive blog http://uscopyrightgroupdefense.com/?gclid=CPWDhZ3qw60CFVCR7Qod4HnRBQ) as method of some copyright owners such as producer of Hurt Locker and as Cinetel Films, Inc. on “I Spit On Your Grave”.
In this recent program, a graduated series of notices come from an offender’s ISP until, after 5-6 such notices, services are either shut-off or throttled down and then, if illegal downloading continues, shut down totally.
Copyright owners are not all pleased with this, as there is no monetary recovery against the offenders. However, most copyright owners realize there is never going to be much money recovered from 6th graders or financially strapped college students, so shutting off service is more immediate and effective as it disrupts the offender and forces the offender to switch to another ISP or stop and still leaves open the option of an extortion letter play if some contingent fee firm wants to take that on..
Posted in Uncategorized
A loophole for the savvy small inventor to get Fast Tracked?
This shows the sick mentality of the PTO Director. While Fat Cats can get priority for all their applications by paying to bypass small business patent applications, the Director requires poor independent inventors to drop an application to get a fast track for another one.
“Pilot Program to Accelerate the Patent Process for Small Entity Inventors
USPTO Director David Kappos has launched a pilot program that will give small entity inventors having two or more patent applications currently pending greater control over the priority in which their applications are examined while also reducing the backlog of unexamined patent applications pending before the USPTO. This pilot will allow a patent application from a small entity to receive special, accelerated status if the applicant is willing to abandon an application that has not been examined.”
Of course, no big business is asked to make this choice.
Now, it will be apparent to savvy small entities that they can now game the system because the USPTO is mismanaged enough to set up a loophole, which allows a small entity to get Fast Tracked for $205.
A small inventor need only file another sacrificial application that can be abandoned in order to get special priority processing on the main application. So, you file two application instead of one and abandon the second to get into the pilot program. The USPTO knows this will happen, but is playing a numbers game. You see the PTO will use this to fudge the numbers to show that small inventors are getting their applications processed as fast as large entities, when in reality it will just be smoke and mirrors and a big joke. Still the savvy small entity can use this to advance their application by, in effect paying just a second filing fee. If it is done right, that second filing fee can be done for as little as $95 by filing a provisional and then filing two regular applications, one in the 24 month provisional program (to later abandon) and the other one regularly. The 24 month provisional is then abandoned to get into the special priority processing pilot program.
Posted in Uncategorized
How Patent Reform will affect litigation
There is a nice article on the effect of the AIA on patent litigation found at http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/NY/Insight/ViewInsight.aspx?id=32746&LangType=1033.
Posted in Uncategorized
Views on AIA and international rights and grant funds
Copy of Comments Sent Earlier Today 2011-11-08 to PTO:
On small inventor international rights and small business innovation fund, in response to USPTO invitation.
Mail Stop OPEA
1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450,
ATTN: Elizabeth Shaw.
I submit the following in response to your request for information for purposes of AIA mandated studies due 2011-11-08.
Overall, how important is international patent protection to small business?
Answer/Comment: Small businesses usually start out with a small local focus, both in assessing their potential market and in sourcing new jobs. That is why small businesses create the majority of new jobs in America. They are not in a position to hire foreign workers or set up foreign factories. So, foreign IP rights, including patents, are normally not considered until the business gets big enough to start thinking globally, but by then foreign patent rights are usually lost. The US Government, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office in particular, do a horrible job at protecting small businesses from this short sightedness. When countries like China, India, Russia and Koreas openly steal intellectual property, millions of US manufacturing and technical jobs are going overseas every year. When the US Government puts an IBM patent strategist in charge of the United States Patent and Trademark Office it is clear why a study is being mandated, as there is every reason to think the US Government has not considered the interests of small business in enacting the Anti Inventor Act of 2011. You are well aware that prominent studies have found that all net new jobs in America are created by small businesses, the consequences of AIA will be devastating. (See, The Importance of Startups in Job Creation and Job Destruction, July 2010, by Tim Kane, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation; http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/firm_formation_importance_of_startups.pdf ) . Don’t lose sight of the fact that AIA was passed by the best Congress money can buy to make it easier for the large multinationals infringe small entity patents with impunity and that results in entrenched businesses being able to send jobs overseas that would have otherwise been created here. (See, Patent Reform is all About Making it Easier for Multinational Corporations to Steal Innovation and Offshore American Jobs, 4-12-11, by Neil Thomas, Silver Spring, MD; http://www.docs.piausa.org/NeilThomas/Patent%20Reform%20is%20All%20About%20Making%20it%20Easier%20for%20
%204-12-11.pdf. It has now become a ‘national security’ issue.
At what point, if ever, in the growth of small companies does international patent protection become important?
Answer/Comment: Small businesses usually start out with a small local focus, both in assessing their potential market and in sourcing new jobs. That is why small businesses create the majority of new jobs in America. They are not in a position to hire foreign workers or set up foreign factories. So, foreign IP rights, including patents, are normally not considered until the business gets big enough to start thinking globally, but by then foreign patent rights are usually lost. Also, as said in other comments you will received from small inventors, foreign rights become important at the outset, but are just not recognized as such as that time. So, they are important from the day that Congress enacts legislation and the USPTO writes regulations that hurts small businesses and assures they are cheated out of their foreign rights by David Kappos’s pals at IBM and other domestic foreign multinationals that the United States Patent and Trademark Office caters to most of, if not all, the time. Small startups are competing from ‘day one’ in a global market for survival with companies worldwide which have huge cost advantages, regulatory advantages and governments which protect them from competition (e.g. The Peoples Republic of China.) A senior Chinese judge understands what cowtowing by David Kappos and fellow IBM puppets in the Senate (e.g Sen. Patrick “IBM” Leahy) have caused to occur by lobbying on behalf of IBM for passage of the Anti Inventor Act [AIA], “…it will make the [US] patent less reliable, easier to be challenged and cheaper to be infringed…will give the companies from developing countries more freedom and flexibility to challenge the…US patent…and make it less costly to infringe. The bill…will weaken the patent protection…” (See, China Intellectual Property News, Nov. 7, 2007; quote from the former Senior Judge, IP Division of Beijing High People’s Court, about a previous version of the pending American Invents Act H R 1249; http://www.reformaia.org/sites/default/files/071107China%20Intellectual%20Property%20News_Certified%20(with%20Selectable%20Text).pdf). So foreign rights are always important to a small business since the rights must, by law be protected within a year of filing the US case or they will be lost, and yet the sycophants in Congress and in the Director’s offices pretend to be helping small inventors when small inventors know just the opposite to be true. You and they are out to cater to IBM and its ilk and not to small business, because you and they care about your Government job security not American job security. Is it treasonous? Probably. Is it deliberate? Certainly. Is it done knowingly with malice? Probably not. You and they are not that smart. However the pupeteers pulling your strings certainly know the score and know the harm they cause to America. One thing we know for sure, and product liability cases, EPA fines, corporate fraud convictions (remember Enron, remember Bernie Maddoff, remember Shearson Lehman, remember etc., etc.) is that short term corporate greed has no conscience or morality and cares nothing for the damage it does to America so long as profits are up today.
What challenges, if any, interfere with the growth and competitiveness of small companies if international patent protection is not sought early in the innovation process?
Answer/Comment: Simple, low cost foreign sourced goods will eat the heart out of the small business if there is no protection against foreign companies stealing the R&D and thereby lowering their cost and producing with slave labor. The result is that foreign invention thieves can make and sell the identical products across the street from the small business and do so at much lower prices, since they have lower costs and do not have to pay fair value for the inventions created at the risk of and by the time, labor and expertise of that small US business. The theft of intellectual property by countries like China, India and Russia and the enormous cost and expense of enforcement to protect IP, now made even more difficult by the Anti Inventor Act of 2011 simply makes that more difficult for small businesses. Again, your boss’s bosses at IBM, MS, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, and Gary Locke’s great friends in China, whom he now serves as Ambassador, are happy you are killing American ingenuity with the Anti Inventor Act of 2011, and really don’t mind the special earmarks to Wilmer Hale law firm ($214M from Sec. 37) or the hoped for invalidation of the Data Treasury patents ith the introduction of “first-to-file” (FTF) it forces small companies to divert their attention and resources from research and development, finding customers, and growing their business to filing numerous, often wasteful patent applications both domestically and internationally. Under AIA small companies will now need to file multiple applications as their R&D progresses to protect a multitude of ideas, only a few of which will ultimately work. For a small company this will be a huge distraction and cost since seeking patent protection is an expensive and time-consuming activity. Passage of F-T-F was a huge disservice to America’s small businesses!
What specific role does international patent protection play in the successful internationalization strategies (such as franchising, exporting, or foreign-direct-investment) of small businesses? Does this role differ by industry or sector?
Answer/Comment: FIRST, Unfortunately, not much since the main offending countries only pay lip service to IP rights and the White House’s IP czar Victoria Espinel seems to be completely ineffective at doing her job. She has been able to do NOTHING to stop IP piracy by China, Russia and India. Instead she just publishes self-serving reports and flies around on boondoggle trips while these countries are engaged in “unfair trade practices,” protecting their domestic industries, manipulating their currency, and laughing at her. American businesses (and I don’t mean IBM, Intel, MICRON and GE which employ more people overseas than in the US and are thus no longer truly American companies) need some sort of protection from our Government and relief from corruption of Government by people like David IBM Kappos, Senator Patrick IBM Leahy, Representative Lamar DELL Smith and the ineffectual Victoria Espinel. However, AIA goes the other way and makes patent protection more difficult and more expensive for small businesses, not less. This is apparently the aim of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, as “Fast Track For Fat Cats” was immediately implemented, and 15% fee increases for small inventors were immediately implementd, but the fee reductions for micro-entities, the definition of which is spelled out in detail in the AIA itself, was put on hold indefinitely while David IBM Kappos deliberates on the matter. Is it any wonder small business thinks Kappos is strictly focused on Fat Cats and that all his discussion of small inventors is just self-serving CYA BS aimed at obfuscating the matter and misleading small business while he and his master at IBM and MS pick their pockets.
How can the USPTO and other Federal agencies best support small businesses regarding international patents? (a)In obtaining international patent rights?
Answer/Comment:Make all US Patents, on an opt-out basis, international patents, subsidizing to whatever substantial extent necessary for small entities, the international fees to make it affordable to small business and obtaining by treating auto-designation of all member countries at low cost for small entities. This would have the effect of allowing small businesses the advantages of the 30 month period under PCT. That would largely solve the current problem of lack of foreign protection for inventions that meet with success during that time period, which for software and high tech should be sufficient to determine market viability internationally. This would also work to the advantage of the big businesses to which you currently cater. This would help take us back to the founders’ intent that patents be both a reward for the inventor’s labor in creating the invention and an encouragement for him to give it to the public. SECOND Move to a registration system much like trademarks, where applications are given rapid novelty exam, and if novel passed to publication for opposition (say 60 days). 90% will not be opposed and will issue. 10% (an educated guess) would draw opposition, and notice would be provided prominently of the opposition so other opposers could cite their art, prior sales, uses, or other invalidation grounds, if they wanted. Examiners would quickly review the citations and issue a decision. Now we have certainty and something courts would respect and we have it within, probably, 6 months of filing. That is timely enough for software, even, and would eliminate the main complaint of big business, which is that they are getting blindsided by issuance of patents after long delay at the PTO. Create a requirement that the PTO, not any court, reviews infringement and invalidity issues, so that all such issues are referred to the patent examiners where they belong. It is ludicrous to have non-technical unqualified juries and judges evaluating such issues because it results in sloppy analysis and conflicting decisions based more on which advocate is arguing the case than on the merits. Patent examiners are just simply not going to be fooled by even the best advocate very often on technical and patent law issues, and if they are it will only be once or they can be replaced. I have been blogging about this simple solution for a decade. See http://burdlaw.com/references/PatentReform/PLEAS-Rev%2020110615.pdf This would help take us back to the founders’ intent that patents be both a reward for the inventor’s labor in creating the invention and an encouragement for him to give it to the public. I feel that First to File (FTF) implementation is designed by IBM and others of the “Coalition” to kill small business. Don’t even try to suggest otherwise to small inventors. We have seen it in action and seen who pushed the AIA with millions of dollars to Akin Gump and other lobbying firms and with pressure on pliant Congressmen in their districts. Those millions were not spent lobbying to help small business, they were spent to help entrenched big business stay on top and get free access to any disruptive new technology that might otherwise displace them from their lofty Fat Cat status. So, if you care about small business at all, you will suggest in your report to Congress that they repeal FTF and return to “First to Invent.” Of course, we know your game (and we don’t like it) so we are not holding our breadth as we small business advocates are not so naïve to expect you to change your spots. We know, and the evidenced shows, the PTO directorship is spotted with corruption by big business. Actions speak truer than words and we follow the money. That our new Chinese Ambassador, in his prior capacity as Secretary of Commerce, appointed the former patent strategist for IBM as the head of the United States Patent and Trademark Office is an action by the US Government that tells small business the game that is being played. Small businesses know they have been sold out and action such as that says more than words. No degree of lip service to small business can correct the actions taken. We know that “harmonization” begins with “harm” and we small businesses are the ones being harmed. In maintaining international patent rights?
Answer/Comment Create a unified, simplified administrative procedure for maintaining US and foreign patent rights so that a small business simply pays one fee to the United States Patent and Trademark Office and that automatically takes care of the international fees. To accommodate the varying geographical scope of international patents, this could be done by the United States Patent and Trademark Office sending a single maintenance bill, perhaps on a yearly basis to spread it out and reduce sticker shock, that included both US and all PCT and foreign national maintenance fees. The key to helping small businesses is to SIMPLIFY so that small business can take the proper action without having to spend huge sums on specialists to advise what needs to be paid when. The United States Patent and Trademark Office could initially just subcontract this out on a competitive basis to one of the maintenance companies that already have programs in place, and which have done this for decades. It is not a hard thing to implement logistically, the problem is your big business bosses (both political and private) won’t let you do it because they want things complex and costly to squeeze out small pioneering inventors so they can steal key inventions with impunity. Again, knowing who is really setting United States Patent and Trademark Office policy (big multinational businesses like IBM), we do not expect much from you in this regard even though the solution is straightforward. Small business activists like me think you are just going through the motions with these “studies” and that the real purpose is to come up with arguments for pro-big business positions and new job killing impositions on small inventors such as those the United States Patent and Trademark Office lobbied for in the Anti Inventor Act of 2011. In enforcing international patent rights?
Answer/Comment: FIRST–Create one single, simplified administrative procedure for enforcing US and foreign patent rights (see again my PLEAS proposal http://burdlaw.com/references/PatentReform/PLEAS-Rev%2020110615.pdf) instead of the endless, costly multitude of Ex parte reexam, Inter partes review, PGR, Sec. 18 Transitional Program, US judicial proceedings, ITC proceedings, customs registration, foreign patent suits (in forums where success rates are minimal at best), and bankruptcy (since that is what will happen to the small business if it tries to engage in international patent enforcement.) All these challenges greatly diminish the value of patents and discourage innovation. Hopefully someone at the United States Patent and Trademark Office has the nerve to issue a report that your Director does not like telling the truth rather than one that cowtows to IBM like you Director does. SECOND: Create and fund a Government agency to ‘prosecute’ alleged infringement of small entity held US patents. This would displace the so called “patent trolls” without leaving small entities without a remedy. One of the great tragedies of the patent system is that small patentees have no way of enforcing their patents due to the cost of enforcement, due to the laws and procedures enacted by the best Congress money can buy and its Fat Cat, big contributor, special interest-focused legislation. THIRD–Provide for injunctive relief. What kind of cruel joke is it to promise “exclusive rights” for limited times that are not exclusive if you are a small patentee without the resources to commercialize the invention yourself? Exclusivity is the leverage that forces big business to honor small dollar patents rather than just steal the invention knowing that the inventor cannot afford patent litigation. FOURTH–Make it a crime to infringe a patent. That way the US Attorney, which does have the expertise and funds to enforce laws, could collect on behalf of small inventors. The US could take a percentage of the recovery as partial reimbursement for its efforts and a fee could be required of the patentees to assure the desire for enforcement is real. FIFTH–Make the loser pay the winner’s fees and expenses in patent litigation, so that the small guy can get contingent fee representation, and so that infringer’s have a much bigger downside risk. This also has the effect of self-policing of infringement actions since the patentee would also pay the legal fees and expenses of a patent infringement defendant found not to infringe. That risk would really minimize the filing of frivolous “extortion” lawsuits that really just seek to harass sufficiently to get bunch of favorable settlements. SIXTH–Make penalties, including treble damages, the norm rather than the exception for infringement.
What role should the Federal Government play in assisting small businesses to defray the costs of filing, maintaining, and enforcing international patent protection?
Answer/Comment: As noted above, an option to have the US Attorney enforce the patent should be made available so small dollar patents can be enforced, which is now not the case.FIRST–As noted above, create a highly simplified ‘one-file’ system where a small business can file once in the US that automatically takes effect world-wide. The current multi-filing, multi-rule system places a disproportionate burden on small businesses and inventors that diverts badly needed funds from R&D to patent filings. This squeezes small business and startups financially, so the risk of failure becomes much greater. That is, I submit the precise purpose of the Anti-Inventor Act of 2011, namely to raise the costs for small business so small business gets priced out of the patent system and it becomes what big business really wants, strictly a rich man’s game. That is not what the founders intended. They wanted patents to go not to the well connected but rather to the well deserving, the original and first true inventor. The US needs to get back the spirit and purpose of the original patent act that, up until September 16th of this year served America so well, despite the special monied interests lobbying so hard to distort and destroy it. SECOND–Create an agency that enforces patents held by small-entity US nationals for them. THIRD–Provide incentives for small-entity US nationals to “practice” their inventions in the US.
In order to help small businesses pay for the costs of filing, maintaining, and enforcing international patent applications, how effective would it be to establish a revolving fund loan program to make loans to small businesses to defray the costs of such applications, maintenance, and enforcement and related technical assistance?
Answer/Comment:This would be extremely helpful, almost without exception. Moreover, there is really no downside to it, other than some big business might be overtaken by a startup with a disruptive (breakthrough) new invention, such as many we have recently witnessed in computer and smartphone technology.
Under what specific circumstances, if at all, would such a fund be effective at helping small businesses?
Answer/Comment: FIRST–If it were a streamlined, simplified, or even automatic process. The less paperwork, the better. SECOND–If the amount of funding was meaningful. THIRD–If the timing was right. For example, one clear situation where it would be perhaps most effective is when infringement is relatively clear but the dollar volume is too low to interest contingent fee attorneys to take the case. If the Government loaned the patentee the cost of legal fees, this would allow private attorneys to pursue the matter, and would eliminate the need for Government attorneys to take the action directly.
If such a fund would be effective, should the fund be maintained by the Federal Government, and if so, through what mechanism?
Answer/Comment: The fund should be administered by the Independent Inventor Assistance Office (IIAO) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office which is already set up to provide assistance, but which currently has no loans to offer. There is no need to create a new agency, provided the IIAO is insulated from political pressure such as having the the loan fund overseen by true small entity inventors or scientists recognized for their objectivity.
What criteria should be used to decide upon recipients of funding?
Answer/Comment: FIRST–Being a small entity (500 employees or less) should be a threshold criteria. SECOND–The loan should be proportional to the appraised value of any particular patent; the more potentially valuable, the bigger the loan. An independent appraiser panel could be assembled to perform this function, or it might be automated such is currently done by Pantros IP and its Patent Index Factor Report.
Could the private sector be meaningfully involved in maintaining and implementing such a fund?
Answer/Comment:FIRST–Could and should. Small inventor representatives like me think it vital to make absolutely sure that the politicians and big corporations are in NO way involved in disbursements by such a fund. It is practically, if not actually, a law of nature that big corporations want to destroy small inventors and are anathema to small patent owners. SECOND–Part of any award to a small inventor successfully enforcing a patent by use of the fund should be a royalty interest of the fund and that should be over and above what is determined to be a reasonable royalty.THIRD–Invite ‘co-investment’ by proven private venture capitalists provided they do not control the invention or the fund. Venture capitalists could help ‘leverage’ such a fund. THIRD–Recognize that big businesses like IBM and Microsoft pay too little in PTO fees in proportion to their size and financial resources and the revenues received in patent royalties. The solution is to increase PTO fees on patents that generate royalties, especially for large corporations, to help finance this fund.
In order to help small businesses pay for the costs of filing, maintaining, and enforcing international patent applications, how effective would it be to establish a grant program to defray the costs of filing applications, paying maintenance fees, and conducting enforcement and to provide related technical assistance?
Answer/Comment: Very effective. Grants should be given for prosecution costs, loans for enforcement. If the enforcement succeeds the defendant, rather than the patentee should be made to repay the loan, as the defendant will have been found to be the cause of the loan being given. Small inventors and businesses typically desperately need capital. Since the patent process and the value of patents are subject to so much uncertainty, the current system is a huge deterrent to innovation. Under what circumstances, if at all, would such a program be effective at helping small businesses?
Answer/Comment: FIRST–If the amount of money was really meaningful;SECOND–If the criteria were meaningful. This needs to be BOTH merit based and needs based, unlike the extremely low income criteria being used in the PTO’s new ‘pro bono’ program.THIRD–This should not simply be welfare to poor people, but rather a program to give money to inventive and creative people, so make it effective and meaningful and have it based more on merit and less on means.
If such a grant program would be effective, should the program be maintained by the Federal Government, and if so, through what mechanism? What type of grant program, covering what specific costs, would be most effective?
Answer/Comment: FIRST–As noted above, the Independent Inventor Assistance Program Office at the United States Patent and Trademark Office is suggested as the best place to impartially determine the merit, and means testing is relatively simple in comparison and could likely be computerized. SECOND–Such a grant program should be guided or administered by a non-politicized committee or board run by successful, true small-entity inventors.THIRD–Please make it self-sustaining with grants being made on a profit sharing basis with small inventors so that if a patent is successful, the fund shares in the profits and thus perpetuates itself to fund other entrepreneurs. FOURTH–Please give the fund the discretion to fund any costs that would make the invention an economic reality; much the way ‘venture capitalists do.
What criteria should be used to decide upon recipients of grants?
Answer/Comment: FIRST–Make the ‘grants’ an investment, not just a gift. SECOND–Breakthrough inventions and inventions which have large economic and/or social value should have priority, as they are likely to create the most new jobs. THIRD–A grant condition should be that recipients ‘practice’ their invention in America, not overseas, so as to create employment and economic growth here. Otherwise, what is the point?
Could the private sector be meaningfully involved in maintaining and implementing such a program?
Answer/Comment: FIRST–Could and should! It should be managed (grant decisions made) by credible, honest and successful small inventors and businesses who have “walked the walk.” SECOND–This could be done by appointments to a board of independent inventors who decide the merits of grantee requests. THIRD–Academics should not be in control of the fund, as it will then be subjected to cronyism and parochialism among academics.
If the Federal Government is limited to providing either (i) A revolving fund loan program or (ii) a grant program described above, but not both, which of these options would be more effective in accomplishing the outcome of helping small businesses pay for the costs of filing, maintaining, and enforcing international patent applications?
Answer/Comment: FIRST–I support a revolving loan, with forgiveness if the invention does not succeed but with a share in profits if the invention does succeed, so that the fund is self-sustaining. SECOND–If a grant program is chosen, despite my recommendation, a well-run grant program should operate on a profit sharing basis so the fund has a good chance of being largely self-sustaining and since does not make sense to punish the unsuccessful and does make sense to share in successes. The fund might even be highly profitable monetarily, as well as socially beneficial in promoting progress, and might grow in size and eventually offer assistance to small inventors in other areas, such as payment of attorney fees for prosecution of meritorious applications.
Are there circumstances under which the Federal Government should not consider establishing any of these programs?
Answer/Comment: Yes, FIRST–If it’s administered by the Director or other big business pawn. SECOND–If it’s going to be under-funded, as if the amounts of funding are inconsequential the results will be inconsequential and will render the future establishment of such fund even on a well-financed basis. THIRD–If it’s going to get politicized so that the best Congress money can buy decides which special interest will receive the funds as an “earmark”, as then the results will just be diversion of the money to undeserving political fat cats rather than meritorious inventors. FOURTH–If it’s going to be run by people who don’t know what they are doing, such as the technically unsophisticated members of the best Congress special interest money can buy, as the results will be waste of funds and disappointing results and that will hurt the chances of re-establishment of the fund on a more competent basis later.
Bruce E. Burdick
The White House spin on the Anti Inventor Act of 2011 (AIA or HR1249):
A Modernized Patent System
President Obama signed the America Invents Act into law on September 16, 2011 after nearly a decade of effort to reform the Nation’s outdated patent laws. The new law helps companies and inventors avoid costly delays and unnecessary litigation—letting them focus instead on innovation and job creation. Many key industries in which the United States leads, such as biotechnology, medical devices, telecommunications, the Internet, and advanced manufacturing, depend on a strong and healthy intellectual property system.
The newly-signed law has a number of important reforms that build on reforms already underway under the leadership of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director David Kappos. The law gives the USPTO the resources to reduce patent application waiting times significantly, building on the great strides the patent office has already made, including reducing its backlog by 75,000 during this Administration even as the number of filings per year has increased. The USPTO will now be in a position to implement an innovative program to speed up the processing of the patents that are likely to create good jobs right away.
Under the prioritized examination process, the USPTO will offer start-ups and growing companies an opportunity to have important patents reviewed in one-third the time with a new fast-track option that has a guaranteed 12-month turnaround. The program builds on the Green Technology Pilot program that accelerates patent applications involving reduced greenhouse gas emissions and energy conservation — at no cost to the inventor. More than 2,407 petitions have been granted to green technology patent applicants since the pilot began in December 2009, and USPTO has issued a total of 470 patents under the program.
Excessive litigation has long plagued the patent system. The America Invents Act offers entrepreneurs new ways to avoid litigation regarding patent validity, without the expense of going to U.S. District Court, and will also give the USPTO new tools and resources to improve patent quality. The new law also will harmonize the American patent process with the rest of the world to make it more efficient and predictable, and make it easier for entrepreneurs to market products simultaneously in the United States and for exporting abroad. “
But let’s decipher the political spin and, to paraphrase Paul Harvey, see “the rest of the story”:
A Modernized Newly Corrupted Patent System
President Obama signed the America Invents Act into law on September 16, 2011 after nearly a decade of effort by Akin Gump and other IBMand MS lobbying firms to reform corrupt the Nation’s outdated wonderfully successful existing patent laws that once helped small inventors get a level playing field. The new law helps big multinational companies and rich fat cats “retilt” the playing field to be more like King George had it before the American Revolution, and helps fats cats but not small inventors, avoid costly delays and unnecessary litigation—letting them (fat cats) focus instead on suppressing small firm innovation and job creation and instead allows theft of their inventions by fat cats so fat cats can send those jobs overseas where labor is cheap. Many key industries in which the United States leads, such as biotechnology, medical devices, telecommunications, the Internet, and advanced manufacturing, depend on a strong and healthy intellectual property system so it is important to China that we stop American small inventors from protecting their inventions in these areas. In fact, to help in this effort, I have appointed the cabinet member in charge of the USPTO, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, to be Ambassador to China, which will be grateful to him for this destruction of the advantages the US once enjoyed under our former patent system that he helped me destroy — “So velly good!we tank u yankeeboy” says Chinese invention thief Mr. Stee Ublind and “We be kindly thanking you so kindly.” says Indian low cost producer Myideeisjustlike Urs . And we at the White House say “What’s good for IBM is good for the US” and besides, we need to get something, anything, through Congress so we can spin it to claim we are doing something about jobs NOW. .
The newly-signed law has a number of important job-killing destructive reforms that build further barriers to small inventors on top of those barriers IBM lobbyists and IBM Senators succeeded in getting through in reforms already underway under the leadership of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director David Kappos (I color his name blue to honor Big Blue, his boss), who was IBM’s former patent strategist that we snuck in as the big business fox I wanted in charge of the patent henhouse. The law gives the House Appropriations Committee (which has been diverting USPTO revenues for years) control over the USPTO the resources needed to reduce patent application waiting times significantly even for big multinations and rich people, but we are cutting our “special friends” a special break using a new “Fast Track for Fat Cats” procedure to let them bypass those pesty small inventors, building on the great strides the patent office has already made toward making patents a rich man’s game, including first increasing the backlog by over 100,000 and then reducing its backlog by 75,000 so we are only 25,000 or so behind where we started during this Administration even as the number of filings per year has increased. The USPTO will now be in a position to implement an innovative program to speed up the processing of the patents (and I mean those big multinational business patents when I say “patents”) that are likely to create good jobs in India and China right away (“right away” meaning about three or four years from now), you know those IBM or Apple or MS jobs they are sending overseas where their products are made. And, David IBM Kappos will be able to slow down small inventor patents, raise fees on small inventors (as he has already done) and delay any of the small inventor gimmicks we used to sneak this bill through and pressure Senators to approve a bunch of special earmarks to special “friends” like $214,000,000 for our pals at the Wilmer Hale law firm, and special anti-royalty provisions so that our pals on Wall Street can infringe Data Treasury patents without paying royalties.
Under the new “Fast Track For Fat Cats” prioritized examination process, (again we color it Big Blue as that is who it favors) the USPTO will offer big multinationals like Senator Leahy’s political contributors at IBM and Representative Leahy’s political contributors from Dell Computer the right to pay $4800 to jump their patent applications right over those dratted start-ups and growing companies, so our fat cat friends have an opportunity to have their “important patents “ (and after all, our fat cat political contributors patents are the ones that are most important to us and our re-election), reviewed in one-third the time that small inventors, who can’t afford thousands in extra fee, will take and we do this with that new “fast-track for fat cats” option that has a guaranteed 12-month turnaround. Now, if those disruptive small inventors want to keep their priority let them each come up with an extra $2400 to keep their place. Ha! That ought to squeeze them out of the system. The program builds on the Green Technology Pilot program that accelerates patent applications involving reduced greenhouse gas emissions and energy conservation — at no cost to the inventor, but we corrupted it by making it a “pay to play” option. More than 2,407 petitions have been granted to green technology patent applicants from big business since the pilot began in December 2009, and USPTO has issued a total of 470 patents to big businesses under the program. We are pleased to put a positive spin on this in hopes people will re-elect us before they find out it is a job-killing giveaway full of special earmarks. Fortunately for our fat cat contributors and us, getting new inventions to market takes lots of time and except for fee increases and that Fast Track For Fat Cats that our big business political contributors want implemented right away to squeeze out small inventors, most of this destruction won’t occur for 18 months. By that time the election will be history so I won’t be held accountable for this big business giveaway.
Excessive litigation has long plagued entrenched big businesses that want to reduce costs by stealing inventions and sending those jobs overseas so we have now “rigged” the patent system to make it harder to enforce a patent so our big business contributors don’t have to compensate inventors but rather just pay their own attorneys and pay slave wages overseas . The America Invents Act offers entrepreneurs the “opportunity” to spend lots more of their hard earned money on several pro-big business proceedings we disguise as “new ways to avoid litigation regarding patent validity“, without them even being able to avoid the expense of going to U.S. District Court if our big business friends want to really delay “bad” things like us having to pay for stealing inventions, and will also give the USPTO and its IBM Director new tools and resources to improve patent quality by running up the expense for small entities so their “bad” and “frivolous” patents (i.e. ones they have and we don’t), because, after all, IBM and MS and Apple are big and should be able to stay big and they can pay at fundraisers to help us get reelected, which is what this is really about). The new law also will harmonize the American patent process with the inferior systems that everyone agrees have not produced inventions like our old unmodern American system has, but which are used in the rest of the world to make it more efficient and predictable when big foreign business wants to steal American inventions without having to pay anything to those little inventors that will probably contribute nothing to our campaign, and make it easier for entrepreneurs to be blocked when they try to market products simultaneously in the United States and for exporting abroad. And if you think this “harmonization” is actually bad, wait until you see my plan to “harmonize” our laws with Muslim “Sharia law”. Ignore the fact that “harmonization” starts with the word “harm” and start getting used to saying “God willing” and “all praise be to Allah.”
Posted in Uncategorized
Open letter to David Kappos
Dear Director Kappos:
I am disappointed and upset with your performance as Director. Please quit stalling and do your job. Micro-entity fees were supposed to go into effect immediately upon enactment back on 9/16/2011. You did not have any problem implementing the “Fast Track for Fat Cats” provision (Sect.11(h)) on time on 9/26/2011 to help your friends at IBM. New section 123 of the patent law, effective 9/16/2011 found in section 10(g) of the AIA spells out what is a “micro-entity”. There is no need for delaying implementation to determine qualifications when the Act spells them out. I and many others think you are catering to IBM and other big filers and screwing the little guy. Shame on you! It is one thing for the best Congress money can buy to pass the Anti-Inventor Act of 2011, as a 9% approval rating tells us to expect that sort of big business legislation from Congress. It is another thing for a once proud agency like the US Patent & Trademark Office to deliberately delay Congressionally mandated fee reductions for the smallest inventors. Shame on you! You can always adjust the qualifications later, so there is no need to abuse your discretion to delay this. It smacks of greed and corruption at the PTO. You are living up (or is it down?) to your reputation as David “IBM” Kappos when you pull a stunt like this delay in implementation of micro-entity fees while rushing all the fee increases into effect. Shame on you! We are on to your game and we don’t like it. It seems you are only too eager to do anything to squeeze the independent inventor out of the system.
BURDICK LAW FIRM, 3656 Western Ave.,
Alton, IL 62002
618-462-3450 Fax 618-208-1712
My email policy is posted at www.burdlaw.com/webwarn.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> >-- "The downside of patent applications - AbsolutelyNew Blog" --
-- "Is the Patent-Marking Law Unconstitutional? A Judge Says Yes" --