ralf wrote: >> Morality used to be about fairness. Now it’s about what you can get away with under the law. And the letter of the law has become far removed from its intent due to the language of the letter. All the words have been redefined until only a few know what they mean. <<

EXACTLY!! The SYSTEM works great as it was originally crafted. The ONLY “reformation” that can possibly put the economy back on track is rewinding the political/business machine back to it’s model BEFORE the redefining came about, then using the experiemce of the last 35-40 years as an indicator of when trouble is about to start! The second the old familiar shady legislation/deals rear their head, NIP THEM IN THE FREAKING BUD, as Barney would say!

But for that to ever happen, the root-bound lawmakers/criminals are going to have to be pruned and destroyed.

Let me give you an example of what I would be willing to do.

So far in a months time I have dumped $80.00 on four submissions.

Since KSR, the chance of me passing step 4 has dropped almost 50%

So if I had, say, done this same thing a couple years ago I would have had to only dump 40 bucks for the same chance on step 4.

I would be willing to donate $100.00 a year to an EN Legislative fund to promote the cause of the small inventor in Washington.

I think of this group as a very parallel group to my VoiceMail industry group of years ago.

As a small business involved in product developement today, I see the need for a trade organization of sorts.

My experience in 12 years in the communications business, we had AT@T as our conduit supplier, it was when voice mail first came out,,showin my age,,,

AT@T had been broken up as a monopoly but they weren’t doing it very willingly. They figured out they could put their own mail units inside their central stations and this allowed them to give a better level of service,,,now they were supposed to be allowing independents the same level of access,,,,,they made us put our equipment on our own locations which, when we set up our menu trees we could not offer the same level of switching to our clients.

You know when you call company ABC, you get the options to press 1 then 2 ect…..Back in the day before it all became cheap enough to put in the customer’s office…. that was people like me who were supplying that service…..

We didn’t go cry in our beer,,,,we got ahold of our reps and Senator’s in Washington, through our own special interest group representitives and we got the right to “place on site”.

We did not get angry at big, bigger business… We just taught ourselves what was fair and we dug in…It took a while and a little money from all of us, to get heard in the court of congress….

I am not upset at “Big,,,Bigger” business. I am saying, get use to it and learn how to deal at the levels that your needs are really at.

I agree, business is evil and so is govt but when govt and business crawl into bed with each other then the evil has no bounds. I don’t know what the answer is except a separation of cash and state. Morality used to be about fairness. Now it’s about what you can get away with under the law. And the letter of the law has become far removed from its intent due to the language of the letter. All the words have been redefined until only a few know what they mean. All 3 powerhouses have made it quite cozy for themselves.

soo, kamala, enough about all this serious st(((, what is with you and the circular avitar thingee. Ya got me dizzy girl, every time I log in now I am wonderin how to recognize you,,,lol

well, i gotta get in here too. I think big business has run amok. corporations are driven by the bottom line. I’m not saying business is pure evil, however they have waaaay too much power. We have gotten too accomodating to big business. K, i’ll get off my soap box, thanks.

Marian with all due respect to the art of cut and past….The Lois laws are no longer current…To quote Don Kelly,,,many years inside the USPTO,,,The recent court decision rendered “current laws” old news, no longer apply.

Please search out Don Kelly and his web site that he puts at the bottom of each of his posts here on EN. His website is patentagentplus. com.

He is a registered patent agent and a frequent poster on these threads. He is a good guy and donates a lot of topnotch advice for free on these threads.

And as Lois said, if the current laws were followed and enforced, and the money left where it was intended, there would be no problem.

I know it’s popular culture to bash Big business these days, but lets face it, it’s ultimately Corporations that hold the DREAMS we are all striving for!
If big business fails, little business fails, then capitalism fails… then where are we? (right where the politicians want us it seems)
Las Vegas Invisalign

Frank, agree and agree,,,All I ask us to think about doing is get in the currentness of knowledge so we aren’t spinning our wheels. I am not saying I am right or wrong…I just say I don’t know enough to know if Louis or Luis have the most recent big picture.

I am only saying lets not guess and end up later finding out we really were caught with our heads in the sand.

This is why, after researching how interested Don Kelly is in the individual inventor, to get him to give us an opinion of Louis’s presentation to make sure the recent Roberts Court decision that took away almost 50% of all provisional patent approvals isn’t causing people like u and me more than our fair share of new grief.

With regard to Big buisness versus us, micro micro micro businesses, I have no problem with them other than they can roll over in bed and smother us like a bedbug.

And out of that 50% reduction, yes I would like to know exactly the ratio of much us small guys are swallowing vs the big guys. If in fact it is 1 to 1, great. If the little guys are swallowing 90% and the big guys are swallowing a measly 10% then yes this would need to be added to our list of concerns.

To think you can say just suck it up against a stacked deck is not an educated position to take,,,imo.

The thing you must remember, any and all companies of size, involved at all in patents, has already had their legal department/advisors completely research this very subject and know how it is going to affect them.

Having owned several small small businesses before and having been actively participating in their individual national associations, we had our Washington legislative reps and legal disortations at our anual meetings re any new laws/potential new laws comming down the pike.

This is our business, we must know it like the back of our hand.

If you can believe it, this was before the web, we had call lists to let each of us know to get in touch with our senator, congress person. Nationally, State, and locally.

Why do we want to tell each other, you are on your own, jess suck it up….we need to help each other.

As Don said, “However, it’s important to note that you can gain a lot of insight as to how to overcome those rejections by looking at the www.uspto.gov website.” Just means we have to study harder if we do it ourselves, or relent on independence and hire an attorney or agent to get us in.

And as Lois said, if the current laws were followed and enforced, and the money left where it was intended, there would be no problem.

I know it’s popular culture to bash Big business these days, but lets face it, it’s ultimately Corporations that hold the DREAMS we are all striving for!
If big business fails, little business fails, then capitalism fails… then where are we? (right where the politicians want us it seems)

Hey Luis,,,not really disagreeing but sort of.

I am saying while we ants are runnin around in lock step thinking we are getting some where with a bit of legislation. We have been over run by a sunami from a Supreme Court ruling that no one of us on any of these threads even understood until Don Kelly explained it to us in the last week.

I would think it would be real important that we take this new info and make sure it is incorporated in the legislative work we are doing….I think it would be imperative that we get people like Don to let us know whether we even have our ores in the water.

As i said;

""whether the current laws prevail, or new reformed laws — as proposed — are instituted, they are only meaningful and useful if they are indeed followed and enforced. Accountability is key.""

Atr least regarding ‘examination’ the current laws are more than adequate, IMO. They just need to be followed, respected and enforced, when violated. All PTO officers, and the PTO itself should be accountable.

No diversion of monies. Respect the constitution.

(Article I, Section 8, clause 8 of the US constitution)

http://bit.ly/abFNu7

Also:

Title 35 of the USC; 37 C.F.R. and the Manual of patent & Examination Procedures (MPEP) provide the tools.

Kamala, the sad part is the KSR decision was spearheaded by the Roberts Court, regardless how you feel about him on social issues. What worried me during his hearing was the stories about him being all about big corporate business…I wish I could get Don to comment further, he would have access to the figures.

I asked him to tell us of that 43% success ratio, what percentage of the patents are won by big business compared to before the Roberts Court authored KSR decision.

As a wild guess, I am betting a lot more Corporate wins percentage wise than before.

And I am not sure that any of the reforms will address this newest tilt, at the very least it will cost a lot more money to push a patent through all the appeals that are necessary now due to the higher rejection rate.

Maybe Louis could pickup on Don Kelly’s quote and tell us whether his recomendations covered this newer situation. Maybe we could get a 2 tiered program depending on your financial status to make a fair playing field vs a haves and have nots like we have today.

Wow Darwin, you’ve been doing some deep research, thanks for bringing this thread up. It sounds like reform will help the entrepreneurial spirit our country so badly needs to encourage right now. any news on how the progress is going?

The patent allowance rate for non-provisional patent applications has fallen from around 70% success to 43% in the recent past. The KSR decision has brought much of this change since the examiner now has new ammunition to use against applicants’ patent claims. However, it’s important to note that you can gain a lot of insight as to how to overcome those rejections by looking at the www.uspto.gov website. Don Kelly patentagentplus.com

I fully support the intention of the current administration to improve the patent system.

To that end, I want to reiterate my views. I am only focusing on the aspect that I am familiar with: the examination process.

Most of the examination problems, namely: backlogs, unduly granted patents, and unduly rejected clainms are not caused by inadequate law provisions. They are created by a flagrant disregard of the existing law provisions.

1) When monies collected by the PTO are sent to the treasury, the Office is deprived of adequate funding, and the constitution is thereby violated, as this ultimately sabotages the promotionn of science and useful arts, as mandated by the constitution (Article I, Section 8, clause 8 of the US constitution)

Solving this problem is FUNDAMENTAL. Not one single penny collected by the PTO should go to the treasury.

2) The production quotas imposed on examiners prevent adequate examinations, resulting in a travesti of the system, violating thereby the constitutional purpose of the PTO. (Article I, Section 8, clause 8 of the US constitution)

3) Title 35 of the USC; 37 C.F.R. and the Manual of patent & Examination Procedures (MPEP) furnish all the tools to adequately handle applications. The problem is that they are very often disregarded.

4) Lack of accountability by Examiners, Officers and the PTO as a whole promote negligence and irresponsibility.

In brief:

whether the current laws prevail, or new reformed laws — as proposed — are instituted, they are only meaningful and useful if they are indeed followed and enforced. Accountability is key.

Now is the time to address all the issues that cripple innovation and creativity in our country.

Ralph,
I guess being the one to identify the problem, idea guy with the solution, the engineer that makes the solution work, and the entrepreneur that trys to take it to market I should get the credit. But which hat should get the credit?

Identifying the porblem is easy. Coming up with a solution-anyone can come up with “a” solution. A solution that works more often than not takes an engineer. To make a profit, takes an entrepenuer with vision, determination, and resources. In my view, the engineer (whether he is a shade tree engineer, store bought (educated), or the school of hard knocks – should get the patent if he develops, fine tunes, or improves a design. That is what a PATENT is all about.

If there is an idea guy that believes he has a solution, he can pursue a patent but its risky – what if it doesn’t work as described? An engineer will see what could be improved and then file for his own patent – as it should be. The idea guy, no matter who it is, that comes up with a working solution should be the patent holder, remember that co-inventing is a very viable solution to the “solution”.

This should bring up, what I believe should be a real concern. Should the employer, that an engineer works for, have the rights to the IP that is then created? That is how it is set up now in a majority of businesses. The creativity of one human mind owned by an entrepenuer! Just soesn’t seem right. This exact same scenario could hold true for a clerk in a flower shop that designs a new hose attachment that revolutionizes watering plants – now it’s the IP of the floral shop because of a piece of paper one signed to get a five dollar an hour job!

OK, now I’m on a roll. Next problem. What if… a patent examiner, with no experience in “said art” allows in a claim, something that is totally obvious to anyone skilled in the art, but the claim is still allowed. Now a year or two passes by, and some patent “worthless” in at least one claim is given “legal” validity and prevents other patent applications to use said art.

Boy, I’m glad I’m just a bystander. I’ve already lost too much hair just thinking about this.

Let’s not forget how important the Patent System is to the effectiveness of product licensing and Edison Nation. Without a strong system that protects intellectual property, it would be very difficult for independent inventors to get their ideas licensed by major manufacturers and retailers.

We have the opportunity to support the current adminitsration, at the USPTO, to make the system better.

Ralf, I hear the Patent commissioner has this big paddling stick he invented for the Nuns and he wishes to show it to you!

Don’t fight it Ralf—embrace it. It’s part of your charm.

I think we need a chant like ending every post with Down with the USPTO so they’ll know we’re mad as hell and won’t take it anymore. Down with the USPTO! (I need people to join in so I don’t look like a loon.)

Amen, Ralf. EN is the only way that makes any sense to me too. I’ve been told we live on Inventor Planet, though. We might be sifting through all of this with our Inventor Planet minds. Regardless, I think we all would agree that everyone benefits from ideas being shared and then hopefully developed rather than guarded and hidden with language from the Lawyer Planet.

The system should foster creativity and ingenuity. The way I was exposed to the patent system just scared the **** outa me! I was done ‘till I found EN. It just doesn’t get any better than having EN present the problem and ask for a solution. Let it sink or swim. It’s in their hands after the submission.

The Colgate LPS is an excellent example of how well the Edison Nation model works. Honestly, how many of us ever really considered a messy toothpaste nozzle or leaving the cap off or not being able to squeeze out all the toothpaste were big enough problems to consider. I mean most of us just yelled at others in the family to cap the toothpaste. But Colgate, who are the first to identify the problem, will be paid (from the entrepreneur side) within this model. Idea guys, us, will also be paid. The engineers, edison nation, get their share and Colgate, the entrepreneurs, get to double dip. It would be better if the problem guys could be paid separately from the entrepreneur side. I’m saying like an LPS in search of problems, instead of ideas.
What’s cool about the Colgate search is that such a seemingly insignificant problem could lead to revolutionizing the entire packaging industry. My solution involved packing everything in bags allowing the option to reuse outer containers. This can be used for everything from mustard to face cream. This is why people who can identify problems, not just idea guys or the engineers or entrepreneurs, should have their own piece of the pie despite the contempt us solution guys have for those who can’t solve their own problems. Down with the patent office.

If I may continue I think software programs, design patents, or any type of artistry should be moved under copyright protection. As for scientific discoveries, they presently and automatically belong to the world, you can’t patent them. Yet, they are protected and make money under their own system which scientists don’t seem to complain about. First to publish gets the credit and the articles are peer reviewed. They don’t need a huge bureaucracy full of pimply faced patent examiners just out of college who seem unable to grasp what the patents are about until they have a face to face meeting with your high priced lawyer. And this game of knowing what language they want to see and can’t tell you but will gladly hit you with office actions until you either run out or happen to guess right is retarded and a dishonest method to bleed people of money. I find it strange that there’re laws to force invention submission companies to publish their success rates but the patent office which is in the same racket is not forced to publish theirs.
Anyway, enough ranting, I guess I’m advocating a complete teardown of the patent bureaucracy. The patent office must protect entrepreneurship and engineering. There should be a separate system, like there is for scientists, for idea guys and guys who are first to identify a problem because these guys are crucial to getting the process underway for the engineers and entrepreneurs. The edison nation model works great as you don’t need to be able to prototype your idea or take it to market to get a share of the pie. Yes, that’s the answer! Replace the patent model with the edison nation model and that solves all the problems with the corrupt patent bureaucracy. And then have a completely new, separate model and rules for the entrepreneurship/engineering side.

I’m not at the detail stage at all. I don’t even think the target audience for patents has been properly defined. There are so many facets of invention. There’s the scientist, the engineer, the entrepreneur, the idea guy, and the guy who can identify needs. I don’t think scientists should be forced to file patents. I think patents should be inextricably linked to entrepreneurship. Protecting idea guys who can jealously guard their secrets does society no good. Inability to patent should have nothing to do with disclosure. It should have to do with giving the inventor a fair shot at getting his idea to market. His disclosure is his business and if he can’t bring his idea to market, he loses the right to that idea after 2 years or so. The 2 years begins after his first sale. NDA’s are all the legal protection he needs up to that point. If we believe in capitalism, we should encourage competition and improvements on the original idea. But how can the inventor get his fair share for getting the ball rolling without bringing in all sorts of expensive oversight. Inventors need some sort of incentive to invent. I don’t know the answer. I admire how well the copyright system works for embodiments of ideas for songs and writings. The little guy is well protected and it’s easy for him to find out who ripped him off. Sorry about the sparse sentences.

Every country but the U.S.A. goes by the first to file rule which I am all in favor for!

How would we handle disclosure agreements?

My beef is a list that is to long to go into:} But lets take one issue at a time.

To my understanding….Most countries don’t allow disclosures at all, so once you disclose your idea to anyone you do not qualify for patent protection, now I find that a bit to strict…..

The debate is public and I encourage you to become informed. The USPTO website is a wonderful source of information. www.uspto.gov

As a multi patent applicant, and one that can form an opinion too quickly… I wish I could sit in on the hearings and listen to the arguments of both sides. Maybe I better start doing some reading. The move to a “first to file” system is “I believe” the most efficient way to handle major patent law issues. The current system being a major money maker for lawyers preying on successful entrepenuers is my main reason for supporting that change.

From US Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke:

Department of Commerce Sends Letter to Congress Expressing Administration’s Views on Pending Patent Reform Legislation

WASHINGTON – Late yesterday, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke submitted a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing the administration’s view that the draft Manager’s Amendment to existing Senate patent reform legislation will make the reforms more effective upon implementation. Reforming the patent system will accelerate economic growth and job creation, and expand America’s ability to innovate.

In the letter, Locke expressed the administration’s position that the draft Manager’s Amendment to S.515, the “Patent Reform Act of 2010,” saying that it “improves the reported bill and incorporates critical elements of patent reform.” At the same time, the administration is supportive of ongoing discussions to resolve differences between the House and the Senate on patent reform. The letter restates the administration’s commitment to work with both houses of Congress to arrive at a final bill for passage this session.

“Regardless of any issues that remain under discussion (between the House and Senate), there is a consensus that a strong patent system, including an appropriately funded and well-functioning United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), fosters innovation that drives economic growth and creates jobs,” Locke said in the letter.

The letter praises the Manager’s Amendment to S.515 for “including key provisions that fairly balance the interests of innovation and competition across all industries without favoring one industry or particular area of technology over another.” These provisions would:

• Provide authority to the USPTO to adjust patent and trademark fees as needed to reflect the USPTO’s actual costs of providing services to patent applicants.
• Establish post-grant review procedures for reviewing patent validity that provide a faster, lower-cost alternative to litigation.
• Promote international harmonization of patent laws.
• Maintain the compromise of reasonable royalty damages for patent infringement and limit opportunities for abuse in patent litigation.
• Transition our patent law to a first-inventor-to-file system.

The full letter is available on the Department of Commerce Web site: http://www.commerce.gov/NewsRoom/PressReleases_...

I just wanted to bring this important issue back to the top.

I view the USPTO fees diversion as unconstitutional. The ‘Institute for Policy Innovation’ calls it “tax on Innovation”. (PLEASE SEE LINK TO ARTICLE BELOW)

I think we are in esssential agreement. Congress is mandated by the Constitution ’to promote the progress of science and useful arts, not to tax it. Taxing it is grossly unconstitutional.

Proper (constitutional) use of the PTO generated moneys will address all issues.

1) Prevent increasing fees.// 1a) Actually fees may be lowered

2) Have an efficient and effective system with adequate, speedy examinations. (including accountability of examiners and other officers)

3) The end goal, mandated by the constitutionn: “Promote the progress of science and useful arts”

Here’s the IPI link:

http://bit.ly/abFNu7

No excuses!!!!

If you want to be a plumber or electrician you will be an apprentice for 5 years first. If you want to cut hair you will go to school and then pay for a license. You want to open a store you will open a storefront which will take an investment and maybe a contract (unless online, then you need to invest in a website) If you want to sell hot dogs you need a license and a hot dog cart, a cost of a few thousand at the very least.

What makes anyone here think that an inventor does not need a patent??? An idea needs protection or everything can be lost unless you are a BIG market DOMINANT and can secure the market by branding alone.

If you ask a company to develop, market, do all the graphics, distribute, warehouse the stock AND pay for as well as process a patent which can be headaches….well how much compensation do you think you deserve with just a POSSIBLE good idea?

If you hold the patent….YOU HOLD THE KEY TO EVERYTHING….LIKE THE KEY TO START THE CAR! You have leverage.

People are looking for a way around the $5000 or so average cost a patent can be but a patent can cost you $1000 if you care to invest enough time to read a few books on the subject. If you can’t do that….then no sympathy if you want to be in the idea business. You can even get started for a $100 provisional.

It is so good to see that a leader in this invention development, Edison Nation is so concerned on patent protection for both the inventor and the “product developer/marketer”….Edison Nation.

This means one thing for the inventors, this concern for patents…SAFETY and IDEA SECURITY.

Everyone would like their own idea of patent system improvement, I particularly most times like a long patent pending. No one knows the final claims to try and get around.

I just like to say I am impressed once again seeing Edison Nation take the largest stance on this issue that I can see on the most important issue for independent inventors.

If there were no patents…THE INDEPENDENT INVENTOR WOULD NEVER EVEN BE ABLE TO TAKE A SHOT IN THIS BUSINESS…the patent gives the small guy a ticket to get in this game!

Again, all is fine on a licensing deal until the real profits come and then the fights start. Companies and lawyers get picky. I’d rather be responsible for building/making that “key” (the patent). It gives me leverage.

I’m not talking about Edison Nation. I believe you are safe with patents and everything because if they mess with you, and they set it up that way, as we HAVE WITNESSED…we can kick them right in the shin….Mr. Foreman’s shin himself….but for negotiating with decent to large companies….get your patent ATLEAST STARTED…or let Edison Nation take care of it if you partner with them.

You could even send in a patent application yourself for $500 with NO CLAIMS and ask the examiner for help! What is the excuse? Get a provisional and then a patent application, that is $600….and that gives you OVER 3 years until the office action! Get an agent/ attorney then if you wish…but get a patent or let Edison Nation help you.

You can’t sell hot dogs without a cart now could you? Not even lemonade without a stand…so what makes you think you can get in the idea business and be SUCCESSFUL without legal protection by the USPTO?

This is why patent reform is important to all and I am happy to see Edison Nation right in the front of this protest that has been a hot issue for some recent years now….but we all have our own version of how patent law should be….I HATE first to invent…and so does the rest of the world because it is only patent law in the U.S. and nowhere else.

I don’t want some joker to come out with a ratty old notebook destroying my patent when I was serious and invested money and due diligence to make my idea commercialized when some person just drew a few pictures years ago and couldn’t be bothered with investing any more. I worked extra hours to afford my patents so I didn’t take money from the family…..no excuses. Some may say well that notebook is all I could afford…well…I’d like a big restaurant/club business…maybe a yacht chartering service…but I can’t afford. There are always investors for patent costs too….lots of options.

For $500….and 20 bucks for a couple books you can have a patent application pending for over two years before you need a professional if you don’t want to patent yourself….no excuses.

In a rare time the “little man” has a chance to “carry a big stick”…the patent…so all should use it.

Ron Komorowski
Inventor of Handi-Straps
www.handi-straps.com

I applaud Louis for taking a stand and trying to work within the system to make it better for everyone. Being a serial Inventor I decided it was in my best interest to put the burden of the patent on the company licensing the product from me. The high cost of a full patent, extended length of time from application to execution is immense, the cost and length of time answering/rebuttal for office actions is high and slow. Currently I have about 270 separate products I am looking to pursue. The cost, time and logistics of trying to pay and meet all the requirements for a full patent on each would be horrendous.
I would be spending all my time trying to patent the products and never have time to actually try and get them to market.
I get contacted by Inventors daily that have spent $5,000 to $15,000 on patents and have nothing to show for it other than a piece of paper. My issue with the system as it stands is twofold. One, the system is set up to encourage the Inventor to run for a patent as soon as they get an idea so that no one steals it. This is perpetuated by the Invention submission companies who feed the paranoia that you have to have a patent before you show your idea to anyone. Which I have proved time and again is not true. There are numerous companies that will look at ideas in the infancy stage and let you know if they have any interest in it. This costs mere pennies to do, not thousands.
Second, I have issue with the amount of time and lack of penalties for a company that is known for not following the Inventors Protection Act. They rarely get sited for those violations. Randomly call one of these companies and ask them “How many people made more money from royalties than the fees they paid you?” They evade the question, don’t answer it at all, or change the subject and try and get you talking about your invention. They should be cited right then for noncompliance. If they actually do get caught the current system allows the company to simply change their name and go back to business as usual. The fines are small enough that a company considers it just a part of doing business. Where does it hurt a company making millions to pay a fine of a few thousand?

I am all for reform and believe the system needs it, but at the same time I want to see them enforce the current rules such as the Inventor Protection Act. If companies knew they would actually get in trouble for violating the rules you would see more of them following the rules. Rules/laws mean nothing if they are not enforced.

http://www.rogerbrown.net

Louis,

The letter is exceptional. Very well written, clear concise and to the point. I think you presented your/our stance eloquently.

I personally appreciate the addition of affordable. I am at a place where I have the ideas and no capital to protect or produce them.

The first time I met you was at the Season 2 casting call in Washington. I was standing before you with high hopes presenting a unique clamping table design.

While it wasn’t a fit for the show you and the other judges convinced me to keep trying. I would have loved to patent and make that table but after I tallied up the number of patents I’d need based on what your panel had told me it would have easily cost me $40.000 plus just to protect my concepts. I just do not have that kind of money. I could barely afford a single patent if I tried. So there goes another idea that may have helped our country and our economy. It’s just setting there collecting dust. Patent reform is needed and I think you are a great voice to advocate it.

As an aside, I hope Luis and I fall into your aforementioned “Soon to be famous” category. LOL!

Thank you, Louis for championing this cause. You were already one of my heroes…

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was created to carry the congressional duty “… 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.’ as per Article I, Section 8, clause 8, of the United States Constitution.
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constit...

The following are only my opinions, and are based on my ‘pro-se’ filer experiences.

The USPTO often, if not always has a completely opposite effect to that dictated by the constitution.

The backlogs, and slow operation of the Office are tragically not the disease, but only some of its horrifying side effects. The ultimate disease is a very poor quality of examination, resulting in patents that should have never been granted (as claimed) and patents whose claims are unnecessarily narrowed or simply abandoned due to the inability to properly communicate with examiners operating under a stressful system of production quotas.

I had a patent Examiner tell me that she rejected claims because ‘she had to get rid of the case’ [SIC]. I will type it again, so you know that I wrote correctly: I had a patent Examiner tell me that she rejected claims because ‘she had to get rid of the case’ [SIC].

I had another examiner tell me: “But I allowed you some claims in case ‘ABC” clearly implying that I should be satisfied with that and forget about case “XYZ” This examiner also told me that 60% of his cases were allowed, and 40% rejected (or abandoned, I presume). I told him that I failed to understand the relevance of this ratio, and that my only hope was that his goal was to allow 100% of allowable claims and reject 100% of rejectable claims.

I filed complaints, I filed ‘Special Petitions’ (This is a PTO term) which were always ignored or replied in a very creative ‘non-sequitur’ fashion. I complained to the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of commerce forwarded the letters back to the PTO for reply, and the PTO was always consistent in the very creative ‘non sequitur’ style. ((The PTO should have an independent department to assure accountability of all its officers, just ‘a la’ Internal Affairs in any police Department. ))

All of these statements and much more is in the file wrapper of my cases, which are by law a matter of public record, and accessible to anyone to see.

Well, these and many other unbelievable experiences (Ripley comes to mind) lead me to decide that inventing was not worth it. I abandoned inventing and ‘pro-se’ filing for a few years. I came back to inventing about 2 yrs ago, but believe me, I do not want to live any experience with the PTO ever again. I’ve been filing electronically and when prosecution starts I will hire a practitioner. I had enough with dealing with such an inept and counterproductive bureaucracy. (Again, these are only my opinions)

For that same reason I have avoided learning about the Proposed Patent Reform. I confess absolute ignorance about the bill. I tend to get too passionate about things, and that is not good for the cause. I prefer to channel that energy into inventing and other creative activities, which I really enjoy, and simply hope for the best.

The only thing I can do is to acknowledge Louis Foreman efforts and express my unlimited gratitude to him. He is certainly a credible, accredited and respectable advocate for this so noble cause. He is the man.

Years ago (Prior to EN) I wrote a letter to the editor of ID about some PTO issues regarding the fees and backlogs. The letter was published. I should have the letter in an old computer. But again, I think I do better trying to invent little things here and there.

With the last information I had (from years ago) the PTO is not underfunded. The PTO is actually self-financed, and congress —in an unconstitutional move*– diverts moneys generated by the PTO to other federal agencies. ((*It is unconstitutional because it blatantly violates Article I, Section 8, clause 8, of the United States Constitution.))

Thanks for reading. Thanks again to Louis Foreman, and all the best to everyone. As Kelly says: “Happy Inventing”

I thought I would share the following note I received from Senator Leahy’s office today:

Mr. Foreman, thank you very much for this letter. The letter is productive and constructive. We appreciate your support for the patent reform effort and changes to the system that will encourage investment in inventions and innovation.

I agree wholeheartedly in that a change must occur to the current system and those that would use fear to keep the status quo in place are nothing more than lobbyists with their own deep pockets and agendas in mind.

It takes the voices of the people to affect change in the votes and minds of the politicians and if we sit idly by and do nothing as the small fry independent inventor then our politicians can and will be swayed by the lobbyists who have no concern for advancement.

I recall reading a decade ago about how inundated and mismanaged 1800 England was with inventions that the applications would pile up taller then a man and often an inventor would have to wait most of their adult life before they could ever see their idea come to fruition. I realize that things have sped up since then but my life clock has started counting down and I don’t know how long I’ve got left and cannot simply sit and do nothing. I have written to my representatives and explained to them what the lack of reform means to me, my health and my life span.

The US has some 750,000 applications sitting on the floor and if that is not a good example of how bad it has got I don’t want to see worse. I cannot afford to…

Thank you Louis for taking a stand and putting yourself out there for the little fry. ;)

Hey Louis,

I applaud the letter and vocal stance. There is definitely a lot of misinformation floating around on the subject of patent reform, and it only grows when those who are visible amongst and who hold the respect of the independent inventor community become misinformed, or otherwise innocently confused, and feel a need to speak out against the proposed reforms for reasons that don’t always make sense.

Bill

As always Mark, I appreciate the suggestion.

I strongly encourage inventors to become better educated on Patent Reform, and to understand what is right and what is simply misinformation. Just because it is posted on an online forum does not make it factual.

A great place to learn more about the current reform legislation is contained in the Open Letter from USPTO Director Kappos:

http://www.uspto.gov/inventorseye/kapposLetter.htm

“There are people in the inventing industry that don’t care quite as much about it as you do”…. I was actually talking about your opinion.

It sounds as if you have quite a list of things you want Lewis –although I’m not sure getting other inventors to swing your bat is the best approach to getting them.

Maybe it would be better to educate people on the issue – you could provide information about patent reform itself, a reference, a web site, an 800 number – then inventors could become familiar with the topic and if they chose to, they could send a letter to Senator Leahy with their opinion on the subject – Not yours or mine.

For the record, Un-challenged patents is the same as saying first to file. If I see your patent is infringing on my invention and I can prove I invented it before you filed I should have the right to challenge that for the life of the patent. I may not be successful, but the right to challenge should stay with anyone who feels they invented something.

Just my thoughts – thanks for the opportunity to address such an important topic to inventors.

Bravo! As a patent holder, I believe the system works well for small entity inventors, but it could use reform to make the whole process easier and quicker for the independent inventors. If you need signatures or testimony from inventors, you have mine.

I appreciate the feedback and your agreement that we need reform. A better patent system stands to benefit everyone. The current system needs to be refined and improved. I don’t think there is much of an argument there.

I agree that there should be absolute transparency in my intentions. As an inventor, and one who benefits from intellectual property, I want a system where a patent can be examined and prosecuted in 12 months or less. I want a system where once issued, there is a defined period of time when my patents can be challenged. I want some degree of certainty that there is validity and value in the intellectual property so that I can either make the investment to bring products to market, or license the IP to others. All independent inventors benefit in such a system.

You are absolutely correct…“there are people in the inventing industry that don’t care quite as much about it as I do”. I stood up because I was concerned that groups, claiming they were the voice of independent inventors, were saying reform was bad. There was a great deal of misinformation out there, and it was not productive. I have done my due diligence and truly believe that reform will benefit independent inventors, myself included.

I appreciate your support and hope that you will continue to be an advocate for a stronger patent system.

Louis,

Like you, (and many others) I have been in this industry as a professional inventor and product developer for many years. Like you, I have seen firsthand the impact on inventors when their rights are not properly protected – and I too believe there needs to be patent reform to some degree or another.

That being said, I think in the interest of full disclosure you should make sure people know that you have an economic interest in about 180 patents and patent applications currently making their way through the system – many the result of your show, your product development company, and your inventing contest.

Like you, I talk to many inventors in the course of my job, but I’m not sure that would give me license to “voiced the support of Independent Inventors for patent reform” It is in fact your opinion, and although that’s important, you may find others in the inventing industry don’t care quite as much about it as you do.

Mark Reyland

Senator Leahy is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is certainly one of the key members. I would suggest that you reach out to your state Senators and Representatives and let them know where you stand on patent reform. Congress is back in session next week and I anticipate they will be dealing with this issue very soon.

A+

They’d be wise to take you up on your offer to help.

Is Senator Leahy the one for us to write to, or should we write one of our own Senators? I’ve got post-traumatic patent stress from dealing with the current system! (so to speak)

Thanks for being such a strong advocate for inventors!