‘will be revoked by the PTAB once proven valuable’

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/04/24/supreme-court-issues-much-anticipated-oil-states-sas-decisions/id=96302/

‘will be revoked by the PTAB once proven valuable’

Precisely. As we found with the PTO’s secret SAWS program and the gerrymandering of PTAB panels to ensure management’s desired result, the PTO is not immune to political and industrial intrigues and lobbying which deny inventors due process and property rights. Neither as we now see are the majority of the court -so it seems. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10:

“The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the RIGHTS OF PROPERTY originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the FIRST object of government.”

Further, when commenting in Federalist No. 43 on the proposed Constitutional recognition of invention rights, President Madison wrote “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.”

He didn’t say the ‘privilege’, rather he said the ‘RIGHT’. Inventors therefore have a right to their inventions. Of that there is no doubt, no matter how many pages of specious twisted and dishonest logic large infringers submit. Don’t believe the lies of thieves.

We warmly thank Justice Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts for their dissenting opinion.

We are bewildered,  despondent and in essence finished off by such decisions of the majority. Why is it so often since 2005 the court’s majority patent decisions read like they were penned by our largest infringers? But theirs is ransom note jurisprudence. They extract words and phrases from a small number of isolated past decisions of narrow governance and combine them through alchemy and artifice -meanwhile  ignoring the teachings of the great body of historically controlling decisions, the intent of those decisions and the Constitution itself, not to mention the clear intent of America’s founders. As occasionally happens in faulty jurisprudence, decisions can read like the case was decided before the arguments were fashioned to support the predetermined vote. When was the Constitution and common law rescinded? Franklin after the constitutional convention in 1787 said that despite how nearly perfect the Constitution and design of the national government was he believed that within time the government would become corrupt.

So how does one know when a government has become corrupt? Is it when it regards our rights as privileges?

So if one buys a house they own it, but if they create and build an invention and a business around it after years or even decades of work and investing all they own in it they don’t own the invention, they are only allowed to borrow it so long as it pleases a political appointee who may be indirectly (if not directly) controlled by large multinational competitors of the inventor? Huh? So Americans do not have a right to trial by jury as say large multinational infringers? Of course, it’s silly to even think that such a thing as ‘inalienable’ rights could exist. Just like the commoners of Europe in the middle ages we peasants only ‘borrow’ the property of the king, though we create it with no expense or bother to the king, and have no rights just the privileges the king mercifully bestows on us so long as it pleases the king…and of course, our large multinational competitor infringers. These are not patents for a monopoly selling sugar in London which would be a privilege or a gift, although historically those monopolies were sold by monarchs to raise money, such as for the wars they were perpetually fighting. They were in essence taxes, though they had little difference from organized crime protection rackets. Rather, these are patents for new and useful technologies which actually benefit the public rather than fleece them and are therefore for ‘the public good’. They must then be private rights.

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty reads in part:

‘Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free’

Why, so they can be robbed, ground into dust and left for dead by the wealthy and privileged whose wealth is due in no small measure to their theft of our inventions? Do they now control the majority of this court? Is this the America we have become? Is this America’s ‘golden door’?

By way of this and many other decisions since at least eBay in 2005, this court has failed inventors and America. We now have no course but to draft and enact our bill with the help of our friends in Congress in a manner to ensure our rights in the courts, notwithstanding the protestations and lobbying of our largest serial infringers (thieves). Is the SCOTUS majority suited or even competent to hear cases involving patent law? Are they independent, or under the influence of large multinational infringers and their  doctrine of theft? Something is clearly wrong here. Do they hate us and property rights?

It has been perceived by us and many others that many judges do not like patent cases because they can be complex and overwhelming for judges who lack a technical background. Many inventions are ‘abstract’ to those who lack the required technical expertise, but not to those of average skill in those fields. Is it time to require a minimum demonstrated competency by judges in patent cases, or perhaps require a court appointed technical expert to make technical judgements and guide the courts? Most every SCOTUS and often CAFC decisions since eBay have destroyed inventors and given us no fair chance of commercializing our inventions. Clearly it does not when we only prevail 3% of the time through appeal, according to the annual PWC study. Obviously, these fights are fixed. How then can anyone say the patent system ‘promote(s) the Progress of Science and useful Arts’? All it now does is legalize theft of our inventions. It only promotes theft of.

See also…

https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/uspto-innerworkings/

https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/abuse-of-that-process-began-shortly-after/

https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/2017/11/28/but-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg/

For our position and the changes we advocate (the rest of the truth) to restore the patent system, or to join our effort, please visit us at https://aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com/category/our-position/
or, contact us at aifj@mail.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s