I find myself reeling in disbelief after reading this and subsequent links.
Am I the only one who was under the impression that public disclosure
granted a right to file ( or release to public domain ) on the invention
for the following year?
I am fairly new to this list and though I have not been participating I
have been following closely while finishing up on many years of work. I was
preparing for disclosure and filing and now it appears that I have to
completely change my course of action. I have been converting my notes to
html, making video captures and actually finding myself having to re-do
some experiments because I either cant find the film or forgot to take
pictures. Looks like my website will NOT be going up as planned and once i
get my heart rate back to normal I will just thank God that jerry is
on-the-ball.
This information comes "not a minute too soon" too.
There HAS to be a way for people to work together through a medium like
this while not "tipping their hand" to those who would steal their ideas. I
have felt a real tinge of fear about openly telling the whole world about
my work, as I am sure others have felt, but would really like a forum for
discussion. The result has been a passive approach to co-operative research
which, even though I doubt I could have helped many people much I sure
would have liked to bounce ideas off a group such as this.
You all have my deepest respect for your work and devotion (and I know,
first hand, what its like to spend years working toward one goal)
I had a finance source who appears to have found other priorities more
spectacular than my simple work and may well not be willing to follow
through the patent process with me. Of course I want to think my work is
suitable for marketing and may make a difference in this world but they
appear to be just dropping the ball even though I have already recieved
some funding from them and I am asking myself another question? maybe you
can help?
Does the contribution of funds towards developing a "next generation"
prototype grant the contributor any special rights? Assuming
proof-of-concept has already been accomplished.
And, for general information, what if it hasnt? Does someone who gives you
money to prove a concept own any part of the concept?
Sorry to add more questions to this maze-of-a-topic but I need to develop
another strategy now and im not quite sure which direction to go.
Thx
Adrian Knotts
At 10:30 PM 3/29/00 -0600, Jerry W. Decker wrote:
>Hi Folks!
>
>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_a
greements.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/
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------
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/
-------------------------------------------------------------