‘proverbial “bad old days.”’

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/12/patent-progress-and-its-discontents-2018-review

‘proverbial “bad old days.”’

Sure, bad for thieves.

Take a look at his page on their site…

https://www.eff.org/about/staff/joe-mullin

Finally he has dropped the cloak. Through the years we believe he has published articles elsewhere that completely lacked balance and we questioned if he was impartial. We now see he actually works for those tied to promoting what large infringers (thieves) call patent ‘reform’. Not all ‘reporters’ are impartial. Take a look at their Board…

https://www.eff.org/about/board

Drill down and you’ll encounter ties to many of the world’s biggest serial infringers. Most significantly, it appears their site is hosted by perhaps the biggest. Altogether, it is not surprising. Is theirs truly a public interest org, or rather a highly partisan private interest group promoting big business propaganda and their doctrine of theft?

As in the case of big business fat cats, great heft often comes from grand theft. It gives a new meaning to the old phrase, the ‘filthy rich’. Don’t believe the lies of thieves. Their goal is not to reform anything, only to line their pockets by any means possible. As Mark Twain said, ‘truth is not hard to kill, and (that) a lie well told is immortal’.

‘The most shocking aspect of the eBay case…’

https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/12/12/congress-rebuffs-scotus-dominance-patent-law/id=103947/’

‘The most shocking aspect of the eBay case…’

Yes, in our view the eBay decision was alarming. The end result is that it stripped our ability to get injunctions against our large competitors. Without them we have no chance of commercializing our inventions. Yet the Constitution states:

‘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;’

How can anyone have exclusive right to any property if others are free to use (steal) it? Has SCOTUS dissolved our Republic and voided the Constitution by color of law?

Truly, SCOTUS has crushed our hopes of ever commercializing our inventions and when considered with all their other calamitous patent decisions they have rendered since eBay they have destroyed our property, our rights, and our families. Where is the ‘and justice for all’ we recited every morning as children in school? Have they voided that passage too? Is there anything left they have not voided? Who gave them that power? Have they usurped? How can they be for America if they are against property? That is why one our our measures (6) proposes to remove patent cases from SCOTUS in entirety. It appears to us patent cases have become too complex and need a special court whose justices have technical backgrounds or at least substantial experience with patent cases to better adjudicate them.

Further, beginning perhaps post Renaissance, the world has gradually been evolving into an age of specialization. No longer is the artist a painter and sculptor as well as an architect and engineer. The depth and breadth of fields now includes hundreds of years of investigation and advancement. There is simply too much for one to absorb and attain proficiency in multiple fields.

Similarly, case law has long since expanded beyond a single volume of Coke on Littleton. Volumes cannot contain our case law. It now fills libraries and servers. There is simply too much case law for one to know to be proficient -certainly as a general practitioner, and certainly not for a field so specialized as invention has become. To successfully implement such a wide spectrum of law specialization is now required. Today no one would even consider going to their family doctor to have a tooth extracted. Nor would one go to their family doctor for open heart surgery. There is simply too much to know and fields have become so vastly more complex with hundreds of years of development and advancement. Law in that regard is no different from the sciences. Specialization is required. We believe that clearly applies to patent law. Other attorneys specialize and have for decades. They understand the advantages. Why not judges? Courts must change to keep pace with everyone else.

In short, thanks to these horrific decisions and to disastrous law like AIA inventors no longer have any realistic expectation we will ever be able to commercialize our inventions, or even benefit materially from them. That is why our issued patents have collapsed to only about 10% of their historic share, if not less and still falling.

We continue to build our committees and draft our bill with the help of our friends in Congress and the White House which will undo the calamity of these laws and restore our patent system.

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

‘should have been found invalid’

http://fortune.com/2018/11/30/sprint-time-warner-patent-verdict/?iid=sr-link1

‘Sprint patents should have been found invalid’

But the problem is that far too few patents are being issued and upheld, certainly for inventors and other small entities. We no longer have any reasonable expectation we will be able to commercialize our inventions which greatly explains why small entity patent applications and issued patents have plummeted in recent years -down to only about a 6% share of issued by our last review, if not less and still falling as compared to an historical share of up to 80%. Clearly this patent system grossly fails to encourage inventors -only our large thieving competitors who are now free to rob and crush us. Are their any courts left who respect our rights and property? Are there any left who respect and acknowledge the Constitution? Must inventors claim the ‘right of the cudgel’ as Franklin wrote of in his autobiography?

We are very hopeful the new Director will help, but there is a limit to what he can do unless the law is changed. Our bill will accomplish that, but judging by recent conduct at the PTO in thwarting our efforts at patenting our inventions such as in refusing to follow the law as respects interferences, we are led to believe large infringer (thief) influence still exists in at least some corners at the PTO -the stain and sins of past Directors and their ties to multinational thieves. In a similar fashion a few years ago another inventor copied and filed claims of a large competitor in a pending application while notifying the examiner, yet no interference was declared. Does the PTO only exist to further the interests of large corporations? We urge Director Iancu to continue his purge of their cronies, agents and influence throughout the office. We fully and enthusiastically support that directive.

 

‘Emperor’

As we have stated, none of the present bills before Congress which we have seen will restore our patent system so that inventors will once again have a realistic expectation we will be able to commercialize our inventions -though we truly wish they did. Nevertheless, what we wish we saw versus what we truly did will not restore our rights, nor will it clothe Hans Christian Andersen’s Emperor.

Realistically, it impossible for any member of Congress to be expert at all things. That’s just not possible. There are presently no members in Congress and may never have been that have experienced all phases of the patent system, from obtaining and keeping to enforcing and commercialization. Collectively and in some instances individually, we have that experience. In fact, among us we have hundreds of years of experience in all phases. With the help of our friends in Congress we will put all that experience to the best possible use in drafting and passing a bill that will not only solve select crippling problems in the system currently, but restore it to full health where inventors will once again have a realistic expectation we will be able to commercialize our inventions. Most certainly, we are not the large multinational infringers (thieves) who have caused the problems and covertly only seek to completely destroy it or further pervert it so no one but them can possibly use it. Congress should beware of their gift horses.

For example, none of the present bills will restore injunctions to the prior standard so that once infringement is found an injunction will ‘issue absent exceptional circumstances’. The changes as proposed in those bills will not help inventors as we will still be unable to obtain injunctions and therefore still be unable to commercialize against our far larger and better capitalized multinational competitors. The same situation applies to our other most important proposed measures and few if any of our our remaining measures are even addressed by the other bills. Until substantially all our measures are enacted into law inventors will continue to refuse to risk their time and resources and our patent system will continue to be a tool for our large infringing (thieving) competitors and their partners in crime. Thomas Edison learned in his very first invention (voting machine, 1869) that investing one’s time and money in an invention that will not pay is a waste of both.