Recently, a close friend brought something to my attention
that I find most disturbing and it has caused me to question
the very existence of KeelyNet BECAUSE of the probability
that some do not share the same goals despite what they say,
but are here only in the hopes something will be released
that they can run and patent as quickly as possible after it
is released.
In trying to address the legalities, it turns out that if
you release anything publicly, within the first year, ANYONE
can freely patent it as their own.
After one year of being publicly posted, it becomes public
domain if it has not been entered into the patent process
and thus unpatentable.
One such recent similar scam attempt was to claim to have
copyrighted the Tesla patents and force KeelyNet by threat
of lawsuit to remove the free copies we provide courtesy of
Fred Walters;
http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/m8183.html
That threat has been countenanced and nullified. This is
the third time KeelyNet has been threatened with legal
action by people claiming copyright or other issues, all of
whom have backed down when legal proof of their claim was
required.
Now I am shown a TRUE scenario where a device was freely
released on KeelyNet back 6 years ago by the inventors and
where a variation of this was patented by another party
almost one month later. This certainly erodes trust and
shows why inventors are not the least bit interested in
releasing anything, whether posted as a proof of principle
format as posted at;
http://www.keelynet.com/pop.htm
or through the shareware document scenario at;
http://www.keelynet.com/share.htm
I admit I'm more than a bit dense when it comes to money
matters and greed which tantalizes some by the offer of
tremendous income potential. I've always hoped and counted
on an inherent integrity of people who become involved with
others who actually do experiment and share their findings.
On the BBS, we had levels of security where only certain
people (admitted based on their knowledge, insights and
willingness to help others with their projects) were allowed
to view and participate with the understanding that we were
serving as free consultation and sounding boards as well as
in some cases verifiers of what was being witnessed or
claimed.
Now I find that one of those who was in the secure group
humbugged and blasted the release, then ran out and patented
it in their own name one month after the 'free' release
asking for verification.
I am very, VERY disappointed and disturbed to learn this.
So, how to get around this?
One solution APPEARS to be to;
1) file a patent and assign it IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN,
2) simply hold it for one year,
3) post the details widely and attach patent pending
4) after a year, if it has not gone through to be
granted, abandon it
since it is NOW public domain and cannot be
copyrighted by anyone
except as variations, but the BASIC proof remains free
5) OR if it HAS gone through, it is now patented in the
public domain and so
CANNOT be patented except for variations
That gets back to the bugaboo of funding to file for
something that will NEVER be able to recompense the person
or people who provided the finances in the first place.
So, based on the attached information, there now appears to
be two other approaches;
1) post it publicly but only a select few know the
location or have a copy
thus it becomes public domain and do not publicize it
for the needed
one year
2) setup a Provisional Patent Application (PPA)
A Provisional Patent will provide a cheap 1 year lock on the
patent, though by publishing in the public domain, that PPA
becomes null and void. That means you are out a small
amount of money and simply do not continue to pursue the
patent, which means it becomes abandoned and thus in the
public domain.
links for patent, copyright and trademarks;
http://www.netside.com/~legal007/primer.html
PATENT PENDING
The terms 'patent pending' and 'patent applied for' are used
by a manufacturer or seller of an article to inform the
public that an application for a patent on that article is
on file. The law imposes a fee on those who use these terms
falsely.
A patentee who makes or sells patented articles, or a person
who does so for or under the patentee is required to mark
the articles with the word "Patent" and the number of the
patent. The penalty for failure to mark is that the patentee
may not recover damages from an infringer unless the
infringer was duly notified of the infringement and
continued to infringe after the notice.
The marking of an article as patented when it is not in fact
patented is against the law and subjects the offender to a
penalty.
Some persons mark articles sold with the terms "Patent
Applied For" or "Patent Pending." These phrases have no
legal effect, but only give information that an application
for patent has been filed in the Patent and Trademark
Office.
The protection afforded by a patent does not start until the
actual grant of the patent. False use of these phrases or
their equivalent is prohibited.
------------------------
The above clearly shows that attaching 'patent pending' to
anything, in a document or on a device, has no legal
validity, even if its true....<g>....that the patent HAS
been applied for. Until it is GRANTED and ASSIGNED a
number, it is wide open to challenge, reverse engineering,
duplication or variations that can be patented by another.
What a mess.
You see, overunity (a self-running device that also does
work above and beyond that necessary to keep itself in
operation)
and gravity attenation (reducing, increasing gravity) basic
principles
MUST not be patented for personal or corporate use or
otherwise put in a position where they could be bought out
for locking away in some vault, placed under a secrecy order
or otherwise prevented from ever being put into practical
application worldwide.
But a patent CAN be ASSIGNED as 'placed in the public
domain' for the good of humanity, etc..
------------------------
provisional patent application for $75.00;
http://www.inventionconvention.com/ncio/specialreport/007.html
In essence, a PPA is a preliminary patent application which
lasts for up to one year. The PPA can be filed directly by
the inventor without hiring a patent attorney, it only costs
$75 to file with the USPTO, and it allows the inventor to
legally state that he/she is "patent pending".
(Note: The term "non" provisional patent application refers
to a standard patent application, and PPA refers to the
provisional patent application.)
GNASS/NCIO: What happens if the 1 year PPA deadline passes,
and the (standard) patent isn't applied for?
KELLY/USPTO: When provisional patent applications (PPAs) are
filed, the applicant has one year within which to file the
non-provisional (standard) patent application to gain the
benefit of the earlier filing date.
In other words, when the year passes following the filing of
the provisional patent application (PPA), a subsequently
filed non-provisional (standard) application would not
benefit from the earlier provisional application (PPA)
filing date.
This could happen, for example, in the case where the
inventor discovers that the invention needed more
development before continuing.
So, the only real loss in not filing the nonprovisional
patent application (PPA) within the one-year period is the
loss of the earlier filing date.
Of course, applicants must be alert to the problem that
arises if the invention is made "public" more than a year
before the filing of the non-provisional (standard) patent
application. This would constitute a bar to patentability.
GNASS/NCIO: Can someone still apply for a (standard) patent
after the 1 year period? Or does he lose the idea? Or can he
still continue to use the "first-to-invent" system by using
log books and confidentiality agreements?
KELLY/USPTO: Yes, after the one-year passes, someone
(namely, the inventor) still can apply for the patent.
She/he does not lose the idea, except in the case I
mentioned where some activity poses a bar to patentability.
And, yes, the system in the United States continues to be
"first to invent," where log books or journals may be used
to establish certain critical dates.
---------------------
would the invention be profitable enough for companies to
assign resources to try to lock down and patent an invention
that was posted but where the one year had not yet elapsed
for it to become 'public domain'?
http://www.mic.hawaii.edu/faculty/tech2.html#11
If the invention has been dedicated to the public through
publication, no commercial firm would devote extensive
resources to developing the first commercial application,
knowing that ANY OF THEIR COMPETITORS can step in and reap
the profits of commercial exploitation once the invention
has been proven.
Patents, and the seventeenth year exclusive position they
provide to the inventor, or to the inventors designee, are
necessary for successful commercial development of
inventions.
---------------------------
international agreements and patents that take years to be
granted;
http://www.fenwick.com/pub/ip_pubs/International_Agreements/international_agreements.htm
Current statistics indicate typical "prosecution" time for a
U.S. patent application (i.e., the time from filing of the
application to issuance of the corresponding patent) to be
somewhat less than three years. Therefore, at the most
basic level this change suggests a slightly longer term of
enforcement for U.S. patents.
The proposed regulations also permit an extension of this
term, up to five years, in cases where the prosecution of
the patent has been delayed by certain proceedings in the
PTO or elsewhere (e.g., interferences proceedings, appeals,
and secrecy orders).
The change to a 20-year from filing term was spurred by two
primary concerns: harmonization with the patent laws of
other countries and elimination of "submarine" patents. As
to the latter, current U.S. law permits applicants to
proceed very slowly in prosecuting a patent, so that some
patents issue many years after the original application was
filed.
Since current U.S. law retains applications in secrecy until
issuance, some very fundamental patents have "surfaced" only
after entire industries have been built on infringing
technology.
A notorious example is a patent on a single-chip
microcomputer that issued in 1990 after 20 years of
prosecution, based on work done in the late 1960s.
2. New "Provisional" Application Closes Potential Loophole
By filing a provisional application in the PFO, inventors
can obtain a priority date that does not start the 20 year
from filing patent term. A provisional application need not
include either claims or an inventor's declaration.
A nominal fee of $150 for large entities and $75 for small
entities is proposed for provisional filings.
If the inventor files a related full patent application
within a year of the provisional filing, the inventor will
get the benefit of the provisional filing date for priority
purposes, but the provisional filing date will not be
considered in determining the patent term. Provisional
applications are automatically abandoned a year after they
are filed.
-------------------------
proof of first invented;
http://www.inventionhelp.com/html/faqpatents.html
The term "patent pending" can be used, however, the
application will automatically go abandoned by law one year
after filing. To obtain a patent, the inventor must file a
nonprovisional application within 12 months of the filing
date of the provisional application .
Only the true inventor may apply for a patent. According to
35 U.S.C. Section 102(f), a person is not entitled to a
patent if "he did not himself invent the subject matter
sought to be patented."
This simply states a fundamental principle of American
patent law--what you patent must be your own invention: you
cannot patent another's invention, nor can you patent an
invention imported from abroad.
The general rule regarding anyone's rights to a patent is
the person who first conceives of an invention and proceeds
to perfect it and adapt it with reasonable diligence may
date his invention back to the date of conception.
Conception refers to the formation in the mind of the
inventor a definite idea of a complete and operative
invention.
Conception must be established by extrinsic evidence (notes,
witnesses, notarized copies, etc.) other than simply the
testimony of the inventor. Generally, the date of your
invention is either when you construct a working, useful
model of your invention (called actual reduction to
practice) or when you file a patent application
(constructive reduction to practice). However, if you
exercised diligence from conception to date of the
application, you can "back-date" the date of invention to
the date of conception.
The determination is made with respect to the date of your
invention, not when you file an application; so you can see
the importance of establishing the date of conception of
your invention and keeping good records.
Generally, the inventor has up to one year after first
public disclosure to file the appropriate patent
application.
Section 102(c) explains that failure to file a patent
application within a reasonable period after completing your
invention will result in your abandonment of the invention
regardless of your intent. Abandonment also arises when an
inventor fails to claim all he is entitled to in a patent
application.
Section 102(f) states very simply that only the inventor may
file an application. This bars people who might
misappropriate an idea from filing, because they would have
to swear an oath that they were the inventor.
Generally patents are issued approximately 12 to 22 months
after application. During this period the patent is pending.
A first office action is usually received 6 to 12 months
after the application is filed. After either amendment or
other consultation, the patent process proceeds until
conclusion. The filing of a provisional application does not
begin the examination process.
-------------------------
This is all a result of finding out that one of us had done
a back run to patent a variation of work that was freely
released by others though where an improved version was in
process of patent application and which is now in limbo,
where the patent office will not grant nor reject the
patent, thereby locking it up as long as they choose. The
people involved simply don't have the money or resources to
take on the US Patent office who taunted them with the
statement, 'so SUE us'.
What a quandary....release it as the proof of principle, let
the lurkers grab it and throw a patent on it in their name
and they have full rights to it.
Or just post it privately with dates and possibly the old
postal stamp record, then be quiet about it for a year, then
make the noise that will get it out freely to everyone. At
least the basic principle will be free though of course
there will be variations and improvements that will be
patentable, though the initial effect can be used by anyone.
Said it before and I'll say it again, it is the discovery of
basic, low power, low level phenomena, that can be scaled up
to effect useful applications. So it has been with induced
current in wires by stroking with a magnet to produce
electric current leading to generators, current flow in a
coil to produce the magnetic motion of a solenoid, the
rotating magnetic field for motors, the semiconductor
junction for diodes, transistors and integrated circuits,
high voltage in gas to make plasma for lighting, current
through resistors for heat and lighting, etc..
At this point, I'm thinking the two best methods would be
either;
1) posting the document in some public venue though only a
very few would see it
and making a point to print it out, seal it in an
envelope and have a
postal date stamp placed on that
2) signing up for a PPA (provisional patent) good for one
year of protection
and just keeping quiet about it publicly, then
abandoning it after the one
year and just post all the details
Any additional ideas on this subject?
The goal for this year is to get the workshop finished, the
nonprofit setup and focus on building projects, a mix of
overunity and gravity attenuation as public domain, as well
as commercial applications that will sustain the nonprofit
and its employees and associates so they can carry on with
the more exotic experiments.
There is no question we will be seeking patents for
commercial technologies and devices whose income will go to
the nonprofit, but we need to make sure there are no chances
that WHEN we find a working overunity or gravity attenuation
proof of principle, that it MUST be in the public domain to
prevent it from being stolen by the unscrupulous.
-------------------------
Additional information on this subject is posted at the
following;
patents & public domain;
http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/m7755.html
http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/m7773.html
patent offenses;
http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/m5598.html
idea theives;
http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/m8042.html
non-disclosures;
http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/m6454.html
least 'educated' file most patents;
http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/m7901.html
writing off everything without even trying;
http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/m8200.html
a reverse engineering scenario;
http://www.library.ubc.ca/patscan/Gel/gel.htm
-- KeelyNet - From an Art to a Science Jerry W. Decker - http://www.keelynet.com/discussion archives http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, TX 75187 - 214.324.8741------------------------------------------------------------- To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com> with the body text: leave Interact list archives and on line subscription forms are at http://keelynet.com/interact/ -------------------------------------------------------------