May 2016 – American Inventors for Justice

‘VirnetX patents are invalid’

‘http://fortune.com/2016/05/26/facetime-injunction/

‘Apple declined to comment on Wednesday’s hearing, but has told Fortune in the past that it believes the VirnetX patents are invalid, and the case reflects “the desperate need for patent reform.”’

So say large infringers and those they have duped or doped. All accused infringers claim patents are invalid. There is nothing noteworthy or newsworthy about that. But if the patents were theirs they would be saying the opposite. As the old story goes it depends on ‘whose ox is being gored’.

Just because they call it ‘reform’ doesn’t mean it is. Don’t believe the lies of Chinese and large multinational invention thieves and their paid propaganda machines.

For our position and the changes we advocate to truly reform the patent system, or to join our effort, please visit us at https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/category/our-position/
or, contact us at tifj@mail.com

‘cash in on the innovations of others’

‘http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/u-s-innovators-dogged-by-money-grubbing-patent-trolls/

‘cash in on the innovations of others’

If they were truly the ‘innovations of others’, the infringers would own the patents and not the plaintiffs. This is what we get when large corps own or control media outlets. They say and write what they are told to. This article is not journalism. It is the Chinese style propaganda of large invention thieves with an agenda. This is not the first time NPR has published what we regard as blatantly biased and substandard articles on patents. We are astounded and appalled. NPR needs new leadership. Better yet, end public funding for NPR. It serves the interests of large corporations, not the public.

Just because they call it reform doesn’t mean it is. Don’t believe the lies of Chinese and large multinational invention thieves or their paid puppets fronting for them. Thieves are thieves no matter the size. Patents do not hinder innovation, only theft of.

‘raising entry barriers for prospective competitors’

‘http://www.aei.org/publication/how-much-corporate-profits-comes-from-cronyism/?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_content=AEITHISWEEK&utm_campaign=Weekly052816

‘regulation can help incumbent firms by raising entry barriers for prospective competitors’

That’s exactly what has happened to the patent system. It is now so hard it’s in most every case impossible for inventors and small entities to get and enforce their invention rights. We go out of business before we even get our patents. As a result infringers are able to steal at will. The patent system now protects theft of inventions and even encourages more than it discourages.

‘a company that doesn’t own much except patents’

‘http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2016/05/26/patent-reform-in-ma-patent-troll-bill-has-vc-industry-backers/

‘a company that doesn’t own much except patents’

But of course that means they own the invention -they created the technology. The infringers are simply using it without permission, which is…theft.

Beware of slight of hand by invention thieves and their paid puppets. Just because they call it ‘reform’ doesn’t mean it is.

The patent system now teeters on the brink of lawlessness. Call it what you will…patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your invention and we’re not going to stop or pay”. It’s a pure red herring by large invention thieves and their paid puppets to kill any inventor support system. As Mark Twain said, ‘truth is not hard to kill, and (that) a lie well told is immortal’. Those who use the amorphous phrase ‘patent troll’ expose themselves as thieves, duped, or doped and perpetuate the lie.

‘the Federal Circuit held…’

‘http://www.natlawreview.com/article/re-tc-heartland-llc-status-quo-venue-selection-patent-suits-now

‘the Federal Circuit held that the broad definition of “reside” in § 1391 also applied to § 1400(b)’

We agree and applaud the court. As has always been the tradition in America, plaintiffs have always had the right to bring suit for a tort in any venue where their rights are trespassed. If infringers don’t want to be held accountable in a given venue, then don’t rob us there. Of course if it was their invention that was stolen, the defendants would no doubt claim the right to sue in any venue they wished. The dissembling and intrigue by thieves will never end.

Just because they call it ‘reform’ doesn’t mean it is.

‘IPR violates Article III of the Constitution…’

‘http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/05/20/usptos-ipr-process-constitutional/id=69310/

‘We argue that IPR violates Article III of the Constitution, which vests the judicial power in the federal courts, and also the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a right to a jury in civil litigation.’

We agree. The Constitution merely acknowledges and codifies the historically recognized rights of inventors and authors. As then future president James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 43 , “The utility of the clause will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of the individuals.”

These then are property rights in every sense and as such demand the same treatment afforded all property rights -a lawful court and jury.

Also, see measure 3 in our Statement of Position as below.

‘Our patent system is in trouble’

‘http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/05/22/congress-patent-system-protects-inventors-entrepreneurs/id=69191/

‘Our patent system is in trouble. An entire class of legal instruments, once lauded as worthy and essential elements in a free-market economy built upon innovation, has become suspect.’

We agree. For inventors and small entities the patent system has become too expensive, difficult and lengthy. It is now far too hard for us to obtain and enforce our patents. All these recent changes have destroyed the American inventor. Those proposed by Chinese and large multinational invention thieves will only drive a dagger into a corpse.

‘However, the market is not normal.’

‘http://www.iam-media.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=3cbec828-2e85-4746-b422-772e5f294aa4

‘However, the market is not normal. In fact, for most inventors it doesn’t exist…’

Morinville is correct. All these changes in the patent system have made it a sport of kings and legalized theft of inventions. They have turned diamonds to dust.

‘claims in a software patent were deemed to be patent eligible’

‘http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/05/13/federal-circuit-says-software-patent-claims-not-abstract-are-patent-eligible/id=69147/?utm_source=Website+Subscribers+%28RSS%29&utm_campaign=ee321d3e55-Daily_RSS_Feed_With_Calendar&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_98774de295-ee321d3e55-72165381

‘claims in a software patent were deemed to be patent eligible’

We applaud the court for its decision to reverse the 101 based invalidation. Some courts have become far too restrictive and weak on property rights for inventors. Patents are simply too hard, expensive, and lengthy to get and enforce. The courts as judge Michel has said do seem to be struggling with patentability, which to this court’s credit they readily admit.

We believe the best course when doubt creeps in is to always return to the Constitution and the fundamental natural and common law rights of inventors it sought to acknowledge and protect. Stare Decisis should never be forgotten and faithfully adhered to. The true test and principal considerations for patentability, as in the statute, should always be 1) is the invention new, and 2) is it useful, as recited in the Constitution. Secondary questions which seem to be giving the courts so much pause, such as abstraction, should only be secondary questions or tests at most.

‘trolls’

‘http://patentlyo.com/patent/2016/05/fictional-patent-lawyers.html

‘trolls’

	staff on ‘loosening of patenting…
	staff on ‘misused as tools of agg…
	staff on As we have been saying.
	staff on “ruling on patents could…
	staff on “quietly acquired”