Back to Gateway



( HOME )


( ARCHIVE )

Urgent Alerts

1992
Special Report
First-to-Invent vs.
First-to-File



( RESOURCES )

How to contact your congressmen

Download the current proposed bill

In-depth Legislative Information


( ROUND TABLE DINNER )

Archives

Photo Gallery


( MEDIA )

Please give proper credit
to Inventors Voice[tm]
at inventionconvention.com
as the source of information.

INVENTORS VOICETM


Is this all new to you?
To learn about what inventor rights are, and to read a special report about the background of the U.S. Patent System, click here.

URGENT ALERT!


George Margolin, U.S. Inventor

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON COBLE 017 COMMITTEE PRINT

In the following comments we have provided our beliefs as to what each of the Titles, I through VI actually represent -- not merely what they say they mean. And we have commented on them while attempting to follow the stated premise of the drafters of this material, that each of these points has been "compromised down" from their original language.

But it is clear to us that all but one of these Titles are stalking horses to keep our attention diverted away from the only Real Title -- VI -- the taking of the PTO from the control of the legislative bodies of the American government.

By removing the PTO from the control of the government -- ALL of the Titles -- the ORIGINAL terribly onerous Titles could be quickly restored.

Please look at our comments beginning with Title VI of this "draft" bill, cynically titled "American Inventors Protection Act of 1999" It is meant to protect American Inventors in exactly the same manner as the Serbs are protecting the residents of Kosovo.

Download the current proposed bill

COMMENTS ON THE COBLE BILL: HR 1907

1. Title I -- is called "American Inventors Protection Act of 1999".

Supposedly because it uses Legislation to act against fraudulent invention promotion companies. I believe the Federal Trade Commission is handling this problem very well and has just indicted 10 people, including a lawyer, and is giving them serious jail sentences for defrauding inventors.

But naming Title I of this massive mishmash, "Inventors Rights" as the frontspiece of a bill, which itself is clearly designed to defraud, discourage and destroy American Inventors entirely, seems hypocritical, deceptive and ill spirited. Evil is another word for it.

2. Title II -- is cynically called "FIRST TO INVENT DEFENSE" against patent infringement.

Yet it is the exact opposite of the purpose of our founding fathers who created the great American Patent System. It has little, if anything, to do with the first "Inventor" and uses this title to dissemble by hiding the true nature of this Title under a false appearance. While our patent system was designed to convert trade secrets and hidden processes into disclosed and protected national technical treasures -- Title II is designed to return America to its pre-industrial condition before 1790 where there was no incentive or protection for intellectual and technical property.

Worse yet -- this Submarine attack against the creative growth of America's technology eliminates our time proven "First To Invent" system which requires the disclosure of the invention to the patent office. And -- it kills even the mythical "security" of the "First To File" system so favored by the original perpetrators of the failed technology killing legislative attempts of the "104"' Congress.

In this Committee Print even the first person to file has absolutely no assurance that he will not be submarined and torpedoed by some secret would-be user of the same or similar technology. One who refused to follow the fair and long establish American Rules of Patenting an Invention. This anti-patent ploy could easily protect a non-inventive stealth thief who began to "use" the technology long after the filing inventor invented it, but before he filed it.

Jefferson and Franklin would certainly have found this to be against their -wishes and intent. And, we believe that it should be against the wishes and intent of a Congress which hopes to follow the Constitution in which these rules are laid out.

3. Title III -- Patent Term Guarantee

This is a convoluted attempt to remedy a disaster placed into the GATT Treaty which cut short the life of a crucial portion of America's more important inventions. Biotech being the biggest complainers about this.

Doesn't it seem that correcting this single blunder has now created all the time-wasting legislation caused by the ill conceived 21 words placed into the GATT Treaty -reportedly by Lehman and/or Kirk. Millions of tax dollars wasted, Congressional time ill used, the American public and industry defrauded and foreign governments and trans-nationals given more opportunities to crush the American Patent System, as this current Committee Print demonstrates.

4. Title IV -- United States Publication of Patent Applications Published Abroad, is another winner.

It shows that the perpetrators of this Premature Publishing legislation accept as a given the Euro-Chi-Pan Patent System, which discloses secret patent applications long before they are issued. Sounds like "If they do it, so should we."

If they go Communist, does that mean we should? If they do Ethnic Cleansing, does that mean we should? If they create a climate so cold to creativity that they eliminate invention, does that mean we should? This Title says we should!

And Sec. 406 of this title says that the inventor and creative small company should pay to have their Prematurely Published Patent Applications exposed to the predators of the world. Clever, let the unfairly punished pay for being punished.

5. Title V -- Patent Litigation Reduction Act -- is truly Double-Speak.

Here the drafters of this deadly bill have turned dissembling into an art form. They have converted the original previously titled negative and frightening "Third Party Reexamination" into something that sounds "good" for all. Good? Well, this means that with Premature Publication an established (non inventive) large company concerned that a forthcoming invention might be too far advanced for them to compete with, can go to the patent office and fight to have the patent killed. Of course, that is supposed to be after the patent is issued. And the inventor must pay to defend himself. More than once, if a "group" of "Third Parties" decide they want to cripple, crush, or kill the disturbing invention.

Pre-Issue Opposition -- And although this is stated to be post issue "reexamination" or opposition, doesn't it seem clear that once the application is prematurely published -- since it may take years before it is issued -- this will lead to Pre-issue Opposition" Its been done that way for decades in Japan and for the same reason -- to eliminate the potential competition of superior technology. Do we really want this to happen in America? America thrives on its talent for superior technology and inventiveness. Third Party Reexamination and Prior User Rights together will effectively kill America's competitiveness.

6. Title VI -- HERE IS THE HIDDEN PURPOSE OF THIS BILL! NO CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL!

If all the other titles were "negotiated" away -- THIS title would bring them all back despite what Congress might intend. And the framers of this bill know it well.

How can this happen? Read below.

  • The Director of the PTO is chosen by the President to a 5 year term

  • Only the President can fire him and only "for cause."

  • He can retain this function as long as he is not replaced by the President This could mean multiple 5 year terms -- This sounds like J. Edgar Hoover.

  • He may receive "bonuses" for "performance" up to the same salary as the President of the United States. The same salary as the President of the United States?

  • He shall govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office (this means he could change whatever he might want whenever he might want, "administratively."

  • He shall be of "good moral character and reputation" Just like Lehman?

  • He will provide for the development of a performance-based process. This relates to measures and standards for evaluation "cost effectiveness."

  • Cost effectiveness. How does one measure the effectiveness, cost or quality of a patent? By its weight? By it size? By the speed at which it slid through the process? " Toilet paper may be measured by such standards, but Patent paper must adhere to different standards of quality and effectiveness. And one size patents don't fit all patent requirements.

  • "May acquire, construct, purchase, lease, hold, manage, operate.... Any real, personal or mixed property, or any interest therein, as it considers necessary to carry out its functions." NO CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL.

  • "May make purchases, contracts ... without regard to the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Etc. NO CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL.

  • Director shall (may) consult with the Administrator of General Services "when the Director determines that is practicable, efficient, and cost-effective to do so." NO CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL.

  • Will have a Public Advisory Committee with whom he may consult. Most of whom will come from BIG companies and HE will choose the Chairman of that committee. And he will choose whether or not to listen to what they have to say.

Sounds like an uncontrollable Fiefdom, doesn't it. THIS is what this bill is all about. Taking the PTO out of the government and into the control of the large companies and foreign governments funding this bill.

George Margolin, U.S. Inventor
Margolin Development
Telephone: 949-645-5950
FAX: 949-645-5974
Postal address: PO Box 2846, Newport Beach,CA. 92659
Electronic mail: inventor@margolin-development.com




[ Back to top ]

Have any news? E-mail us!

Copyright 1999. Stephen Paul Gnass. All Rights Reserved.


gateway logo
Back to Gateway


Inventors Voice[tm]
P.O. Box 93669
Los Angeles, CA 90093
323 878-6925
Fax: 323 962-8588
E-mail: inventionconvention@inventionconvention.com
Web site address: www.inventionconvention.com/inventorsvoice