More disturbing patenting issues...

[Furcurequs]

I saw this mentioned today on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum.

...and just... ...well... Wow!

Apparently the United States Patent and Trademark Office has now opened up to the public part of the patent examination process for "peer review"!

Here are a couple of excerpts from an official USPTO press release dated September 20, 2012:

USPTO Encourages Third Parties to Participate in Review of Pending Patent Applications

Crowdsourcing Initiative with Stack Exchange Enables Experts to Introduce Prior Art and Improve Quality of
Examination Process

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) encourages subject-matter experts to take advantage of a new rule implemented under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) that—for the first time in the history of U.S. patent law—allows third parties to submit relevant materials to patent examiners in any given examination. Submission of proposed prior art helps examiners determine whether the innovation in the application is patentable. The new provision, 35 U.S.C. 122(e), was implemented by the USPTO on Sunday, Sept. 16, and applies to any pending application.

...and...

“By introducing third party input into the examination process for the first time since the inception of our nation’s intellectual property system, we’re able to expand the scope of access to prior art in key areas like software patents. This will improve the examination process and advance the Administration’s ongoing commitment to transparency and open government,� said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos. “We encourage our nation’s innovators to follow Stack Exchange’s example and assist us as we improve the examination process and resulting patent quality that will drive our economy and create jobs and exports.�

http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2012/12-60.jsp

Transparency with the personal intellectual property of individuals which hasn't yet received patent protection?!!

...and what if it were economically significant?! (a reference to a previous post of mine)

Here is the website linked to from the press release:

http://patents.stackexchange.com/

This seems to be its mention on the whitehouse website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/innovati ... -to-Patent

This is from the Peer-to-Patent website itself:

Peer To Patent - a joint project between the New York Law School and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Help the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) find the information relevant to assessing the claims of pending patent applications. Become a community reviewer and improve the quality of patents.

http://peertopatent.org/

About Peer To Patent®

Peer To Patent is a historic initiative by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that opens the patent examination process to public participation for the first time. Peer to Patent is an online system that aims to improve the quality of issued patents by enabling the public to supply the USPTO with information relevant to assessing the claims of pending patent applications.

http://peertopatent.tumblr.com/abouttheproject

The Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-Patent

The following is apparently the proposal on which this is based:

http://cairns.typepad.com/blog/2005/07/ ... tent_.html

...which almost turned my stomach to read. It just seems all kinds of wrong.

Here's a snippet:

This modest proposal harnesses social reputation and collaborative filtering technology to create a peer review system of scientific experts ruling on innovation. The idea of blue ribbon panels or advisory committees is not new. But the suggestion to use social reputation software – think Friendster, Linked in, eBay reputation points -- to make such panels big enough, diverse enough and democratic enough to replace the patent examiner is.

I don't believe it's morally right to even publish the patent applications of those who have not been granted a patent, and now they're going to not just do that but let the public be a part of the examination process itself?!

If the patent office decides my inventive idea is not useful, then they should just tell me so and send my application back to me. If my inventive idea is so "obvious" to others skilled in the art that it can't be patented, then they obviously don't need to see my input, so just tell me that and send my application back to me. If my inventive idea is not unique and there is prior art and/or applicable patents that have already been granted, then just tell me so and point me to the references for those things and send my application back to me!

What if the examiner has made a mistake or something and the public gets to see my ideas and use them before I've profited from them? ...or what if I could still salvage enough from my ideas that I could potentially profit from them later, still, except that others have now had a chance to be inspired by my words and my ideas on my patent application?!

What if an inventor has made major sacrifices to explore his inspirations? What if he's made sacrifices in his personal life or has given up a "career", for instance? What if he has put off having a family? What if he has a second mortgage on his house or no house at all? ...and so that he could find the time and money to perhaps spend years if not decades doing independent research and development on his inventive ideas?

...while knowing he will at least have that meager 20 year monopoly at some point to try to recoup some of his investment and hopefully even make a bit of profit so that he can survive and with a little luck perhaps even salvage what's left of his life and maybe possibly even have the resources to pursue other inventive ideas, too, so as to make additional contributions to society.

...and then the patent office - the government - is prepared to just throw the results of all his efforts out there for the public at large to see - including the unscrupulous folks who wouldn't think a thing of stealing the results of another person's labor?!

...arrgghh...

If you thoroughly read the above links, I believe you will see that these new changes are at least in part due to the influence of those who seem to believe that all intellectual property should just be freely shared - whether the owner of that intellectual property wants it to be or not.

The "filesharing" generation.

Anyway, I guess it would be pretty hard to produce prior art for a working perpetual motion machine, but still...

Well, for something so big, I suppose some obscure journal could be invented by others and backdated and include a description of the device.

That's, of course, assuming that Donald Duck hasn't already used it:

http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/donaldduck/

...arrgghh... ...again...

I'm convinced that the world is run by idiots.

...anyway...

Here's the link to the post on the James Randi forum that led to me investigating this a bit. Not much comment there yet.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... 2&t=244771

Dwayne

[Furcurequs]

Apparently the woman whose proposal these ideas are based upon was a member of President Barack Obama's White House for a couple of years. Her title seems to have been deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer for open government.

Practically everything I've read from her so far is just downright disturbing.

Check this out:

Now, she announces to great applause, the US Patent Office is set to unveil total openness, meaning all patent applications will be open for people to assess and analyze as of this year.

http://blog.ted.com/2012/06/28/demand-a ... obal-2012/

Hey! When are they going to open up the IRS so that we can see each others' tax returns, too?!

...oh, and can we do each others' audits?!

You know, I think there may be people in my neighborhood drawing a little too much Social Security income. I'll need to see some of those records, also, I guess - if we're going to fix that problem.

...and when do we get to see the President's drone strike kill list? I bet some peers would like to review that and make some changes.

Sorry, but I'm finding some of this stuff truly hard to believe. Do people in government really think that information that's supposed to be kept confidential should be shared as if it were the result of government/tax dollar funded research or something?

Dwayne

[getterdone]

That's the end of the patent process. The big corporations got total control now.

[getterdone]

Hi Dwayne, I found some more stuff you might find interesting.

Poisoning the next apple

http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.c ... =upenn_wps

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/2 ... w-is-seen/

[John Collins]

So don't patent.

JC

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,
Artistic copy right is better, although I do try and patent my designs, this is because the patent office always refuse my patent, because they contravene known energy laws, thus cannot be made by persons with the subject knowledge, thus they do not have Industrial application! if my design do work then it will be clear that my inventions where out side of the patents systems knowledge base, thus there rule do not apply, if they then try to apply there rules It will be clear that I have been the victim of a fraud as no patent was granted, thus anybody that copies my design will also be participating in the use of fraud.
In the UK they will not even publish my applications, so people cannot make there own minds up, as a direct result of there action there is a big hole in the patent search system of art works, anyone that comes up with the same designs as mine will not know that they have been invented already. The patent system was set up for the purpose of sharing knowledge, in return for a 20 year head start, here is the funny part, they have under mined there own being! They do publish there decisions though but nobody can compere them to the contents of the application.
This is a short hand of one of there decisions, although Trevor believes passionately that his invention will work, he is a dickhead that does not know what he is doing. Although many here believe this to be correct, this may not be the correct thinking, we will find out soon as my work is nearly finished, 6 month time I hope for closure of this prejudice!
Regards Trevor

Edit, also, if it is thought not to have a industrial application, then it must be seen as only having artistic value!

[bobriddle]

I saw this mentioned today on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum.

...and just... ...well... Wow!

USPTO Encourages Third Parties to Participate in Review of Pending Patent Applications



WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) encourages subject-matter experts to take advantage of a new rule implemented under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) that—for the first time in the history of U.S. patent law—allows third parties to submit relevant materials to patent examiners in any given examination. Submission of proposed prior art helps examiners determine whether the innovation in the application is patentable. The new provision, 35 U.S.C. 122(e), was implemented by the USPTO on Sunday, Sept. 16, and applies to any pending application.

Dwayne

Something like this could also save some people some major embarrassment for accidently copying someone else's design.
The biggest example of this is when someone modified the Apple logo after Steve Jobs died and it went viral.
As it turned out, they inverted the black/white image someone had copyrighted a few years earlier. Needless to say, the copied work went viral and put that person in a negative light even though they had tried to find out if the design was already something someone had done.
Also, since the USPTO allows for design patents, it could help to simplify the patent search process. As for protecting idea's to prevent them from being stolen, there is always the provisional patent which protects an invention for one year from the date of application.

edited to run spell check

[MrTim]

One more reason to throw out the current regime "running" the US gov't. Next thing in their crosshairs will be copyrights ("Hey, your work should be shared freely with everyone, 'cause, you know, you didn't do it all on your own, as a lot of other people helped you create the idea. Can't let you deprive those who didn't come up with it as well. What do you mean you want to get paid for your work? You must be a greedy capitalist pig. To the wall with you!") Except for big corporations, of course....

All this will do is add an additional level of expense to patents, i.e. now you'll have to pay bribes to get your patent "approved" (which won't work if your competitors are out to f**k you.)

Something like this could also save some people some major embarrassment for accidently copying someone else's design.
The biggest example of this is when someone modified the Apple logo after Steve Jobs died and it went viral.

That's what a patent & trademark search is for.

[Furcurequs]

Hey Leo (getterdone),

That's the end of the patent process. The big corporations got total control now.

I don't know if I'm ready to give up hope just yet, but these new and proposed changes do give me pause. I don't yet know if some of the quotes I gave adequately describe how things currently are or are planned to be. Maybe the supposed "peer review" is voluntary? ..I hope.

I need to do more research on that.

From what I understand, patent applications are supposed to be kept confidential, but apparently they are now being published after 18 months to in some way be in line with the patenting processes of other countries? ...which wouldn't be the case if the patent office were prosecuting patent application in a timely manner. Apparently it takes upward of three years now.

I would think that the better solution would be to just hire more qualified examiners to meet the demand.

Hi Dwayne, I found some more stuff you might find interesting.

Poisoning the next apple

http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.c ... =upenn_wps

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/2 ... w-is-seen/

Thanks for the links.

I found them very interesting. I'm only about a third of the way through the research report so far, however.

I'm sure there will be more feedback and challenges in the future to the present and planned changes, and so hopefully many of the problems will be ironed out eventually so that the system can be somewhat fair for the little guy - or at least reasonable enough for one to know how to work with it.

Dwayne

[Furcurequs]

Hey John,

So don't patent.

JC

Even though I find some of the new and proposed changes to the U.S. patenting procedures disturbing, I still believe patenting is the way to go so as to try to protect one's intellectual property. ...and if one of my gravity propelled device designs were to actually work and I applied for a patent and went public, I wouldn't really be too worried that any mainstream company would be able to claim it as theirs. The very notion of such a device is too far out there for someone working in such an environment to even publicly entertain - much less actually work to develop.

Should I be worried about some of you, though, maybe? Who knows?

Haven't we discussed my views on patenting before?

I believe I've made in this thread and elsewhere rational and(/or at least) impassioned arguments as to why I would want to patent my ideas.

...but I'll add... ...lol

Ever since I was a kid I wanted to be some combination of independent (ok, "mad") scientist, artist, musician and inventor, and really, even as a kid I actually pursued these interests.

I didn't see examples in real life - well, modern day life at least - of people like whom I wanted to be, however. (Ok, but I did live in Tennessee in the southern U.S. ...lol) The only person I was aware of who came close was Leonardo da Vinci. He seemed to be interested in doing all sorts of different things, too.

I really do believe I may have a similar personality, though time will eventually tell how much I ultimately accomplish or just how talented I prove to be with any of those things mentioned, of course.

When I was in middle school I was reading books on computer circuitry and wanted to build my own computer (amongst other things), though I didn't get much farther than that. Then in my teenage years I started seeing stuff about microcomputers. Guys like Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs were apparently doing the sorts of things I wanted to do, but they had a few years on me and of course more knowledge as to the state of the art. I also remember thinking something like "Bill Gates got lucky catching that wave".

Within a year out of high school, though, I was working in the research and development labs of IBM through my college's co-operative education program. Within two more years I by chance ended up working in the actual design group of one of the IBM PC's - the AT - and so I was part of the big corporate competition of the little guy inventors who started building their devices in a bedroom before moving to the garage.

(Actually, now that I think about it, maybe I should feel guilty about that.)

IBM was already well established but not used to such quick innovation, but they did have a good reputation in the business world and talented engineers and so ended up setting a standard that all the clone manufacturers started copying.

Anyway, even though I enjoyed that stuff, it didn't satisfy all my interests. ...and when it came to technical things I also wanted to truly invent rather than just do engineering. So, I paid close attention to my co-workers and, of course, some were perfectly happy with their well paying corporate jobs, but others would lament about how they wished they had done such and such but couldn't then because they had families and whatnot and could not take the risk.

I typically feel the need to follow any and all of my inspirations, whether they are musical or inventive or scientific or artistic or whatever. ...and I don't know of any "job" that gives one that sort of freedom unless one makes it himself.

So, I feel that the protection of intellectual property is a must for someone like me. I would probably go nuts if I had a typical job or "career". ...though, of course, some believe I was nuts from the beginning - and certainly nuts for not returning to IBM, but... I didn't want to be one of the "I wish" people.

Anyway, now with some health problems on top of it all, I must find a way to "profit" (as in try to just better survive) from my intellectual property - which may be the most valuable stuff I own.

Also, my inspirations - intellectual property - feel more important to me than physical possessions. It's almost like they come through me or out of me and are in some ways a part of me. I had a rough time letting others hear my music in the early days, even.

I'm now more able to distance myself from my "works" - and, of course, the inventive stuff isn't quite like the music in that regard, either - but with any of my stuff, I would want to present it as well as possible to others even still.

Now, in regards to Bessler, if one of my ideas were to work and parts of it seemed to fit Bessler's supposed clues, I wouldn't mind helping you point that out to others later, but this isn't about vindicating Bessler for me or about solving his clues.

I have been pondering the notion of a gravity powered device off and on for decades, and before I even heard of Bessler's story. There's certainly a chance that when doing some research in the library I may have seen a drawing of his wheel in a book listed with one of the failed attempts or frauds, perhaps, but I can't really recall.

If one of my devices were to work, though, and the one I think might actually have some correlation to Bessler's supposed clues, it would include something that I sort of noticed decades ago which caused me a bit of head scratching. It also would seemingly have all the elements I had decided long ago a gravity motor would have to have if such a thing could possibly work.

It just all sort of came together for me one day when making another observation - but, again, this is all contingent upon my prototype actually working once fully built.

Anyway, I've basically planned my entire life to find a way to make a living pursuing my creative endeavors. You are not going to talk me out of trying to protect and even "profit" from my intellectual property.

...and, also, how would I otherwise sell to the rich and give to the poor? I certainly doubt the rich would want to buy my material possessions when many of the poor wouldn't even take them for free these days. ...lol

Talk to you later.

Dwayne

[Furcurequs]

Hello Trevor,

Hi all,
Artistic copy right is better, although I do try and patent my designs, this is because the patent office always refuse my patent, because they contravene known energy laws, thus cannot be made by persons with the subject knowledge, thus they do not have Industrial application! if my design do work then it will be clear that my inventions where out side of the patents systems knowledge base, thus there rule do not apply, if they then try to apply there rules It will be clear that I have been the victim of a fraud as no patent was granted, thus anybody that copies my design will also be participating in the use of fraud.
In the UK they will not even publish my applications, so people cannot make there own minds up, as a direct result of there action there is a big hole in the patent search system of art works, anyone that comes up with the same designs as mine will not know that they have been invented already. The patent system was set up for the purpose of sharing knowledge, in return for a 20 year head start, here is the funny part, they have under mined there own being! They do publish there decisions though but nobody can compere them to the contents of the application.
This is a short hand of one of there decisions, although Trevor believes passionately that his invention will work, he is a dickhead that does not know what he is doing. Although many here believe this to be correct, this may not be the correct thinking, we will find out soon as my work is nearly finished, 6 month time I hope for closure of this prejudice!
Regards Trevor

Edit, also, if it is thought not to have a industrial application, then it must be seen as only having artistic value!

Those in the mainstream scientific community have been taught to believe that what we are trying to do is essentially impossible, so they are very unlikely to believe the claims of any of us until we can actually produce the proverbial "runner".

I believe I once read a pdf file that told of your court battle with your patent office, and I think you probably characterized that incident correctly, from what I can remember. Well, I don't know about the "dickhead" thing. ...lol

A copyrighted description and/or artistic depiction of your ideas and/or even perhaps a copyrighted build - as in a (kinetic?) "sculpture" - might at least show that you had prior art.

These, of course, couldn't give you the kind of protection that a patent would.

If your design or one very similar was ever shown to actually work, however, I believe you would have a very good case for special treatment of some kind and you might even get your patent protection anyway.

There were U.S. senators (or congressmen?) during Joseph Newman's battle with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office concerning his alleged "Energy Machine" who apparently argued that he should just get his patent anyway and let the marketplace decide if it worked or not. I dare say that if he could have actually presented something that worked undeniably, he would have eventually gotten his patent protection - for people in power were willing to go to bat for him.

I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about other people's ideas. I usually just check to make sure that others aren't working on mine. So, I don't feel I've seen enough of your ideas or thought enough about them to give much of an opinion. I will say, however, that I have engineering training and so something of a conventional understanding of things. I tend to believe that a working device will be explainable to some degree by what we already "know," though of course while also demonstrating that even with what we believe we "know," important aspects can still be quite easily overlooked.

Anyway, thanks for your input and good luck with your build and tests.

Dwayne

[John Collins]

I accept what you say, Dwayne, and I know a number of people would patent if they had something to patent, but my own preferred route would be to release the wheel design as widely as possible to prevent any chance of any government clamping a security blanket on it and burying it.

There are a number of ways to profit from the invention without patenting it.

Once the secret is learned it can't be unlearned.

JC

[Jim Williams]

I believe it can be said what is generally required of a utility patent in order to be granted, cannot be found in material that can be copyrighted, i.e, utility patents cannot be copyrighted.

I'd say Bessler's wheel qualifies as an utility patent, thus can't be copyrighted.

...............................................

What Can Be Patented

The patent law specifies the general field of subject matter that can be patented and the conditions under which a patent may be obtained.

In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,� subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. The word “process� is defined by law as a process, act or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes. The term “machine� used in the statute needs no explanation. The term “manufacture� refers to articles that are made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term “composition of matter� relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything that is made by man and the processes for making the products.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 excludes the patenting of inventions useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon. See 42 U.S.C. 2181(a).

The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be “useful.� The term “useful� in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.

Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter that can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.

A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.

What Cannot be Copyrighted

Title 17 Section 102 (b.)


In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship

extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept,

principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained,
illustrated, or embodied in such work

[getterdone]

Hi Mr Tim and all, in Canada the patent laws are a bit different than those of the U.S.
We often talk on the subject of wheather to patent or not, but none of us have a runner so it doesn't really matter at this point.

Speaking for myself, if my next wheel is a runner, it would be the result of everything I've learnt on this site. My intentions would be to reveal the secret first, then to get a patent. In Canada we have one year to patent.

I would start a company to include all the veteran members of this site, then we would be like an army of grey haired ol geezers fighting with the corporations, they wouldn't have a chance against us.

P. S. Changing the puppet isn't going to change anything, the lobbies are to powerful, our goverments have become , of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations

[Furcurequs]

One more reason to throw out the current regime "running" the US gov't. Next thing in their crosshairs will be copyrights ("Hey, your work should be shared freely with everyone, 'cause, you know, you didn't do it all on your own, as a lot of other people helped you create the idea. Can't let you deprive those who didn't come up with it as well. What do you mean you want to get paid for your work? You must be a greedy capitalist pig. To the wall with you!") Except for big corporations, of course....

All this will do is add an additional level of expense to patents, i.e. now you'll have to pay bribes to get your patent "approved" (which won't work if your competitors are out to f**k you.)

Hey MrTim,

Unfortunately, I can't say I'm happy with the current regime, the former regime or any regime that's prepared to take the current regime's place.

The other major party, though, might be a little bit better in this one particular issue, however.

It was likely the influence of big corporations - like Disney - that helped to get the last extension to the term of copyright protection. It now seems to be the life of the author plus 70 years or the shorter of 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation for a corporate work for hire.

I've seen some pretty good arguments that these terms should actually be shortened so as to not tie up intellectual property for that long after the actual creator can no longer earn a profit from it.

Almost an entire lifetime of copyright protection beyond the death of the original creator does seem a bit much. ...which can lead to lots of "orphaned" works (for Google to try to take ownership of).

Think if we threw out the current regime and licensed our patentable ideas to Disney we could get the term of our patent protection increased, too?

..eh.. ...anyway...

Take care,

Dwayne