This decision is not so good for several reasons. In my mind the question is is this a new marketable product that will sell if so its an improvement on the existing.Nothing whorse for inovation than seeing large profit making companies using your invention for free. Very discouraging for human advancement. If it was obvious it would already be available to the public.I see another argument that was left out less panels and hardware means less production cost therefor reduced cost to consumers.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | May 11, 2009 at 09:33 PM

I.B.M. has a horendious record of any willingness to deal with individual independant inventors.Any significant patents they won are stolen. The only thing they do well is steal patents through legal actions and claim conception in there own group.They employed 40 thousand engineers for forty years without producing a single invention themselves. Continued corruption and refusal to deal will permiate the patent office now.Inovation will falter as his false doctrine of group creation of invention will continue to steal invention from true inventors.I dont trust him with the records either.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.worldsonlyinventorofsignificancearguably.com | May 04, 2009 at 05:29 PM

In response to Chief Patent Counsel, You’re right, this one individual will not cause innovation in the U.S. to collapse, however, anti-inventor new patent reform combined with the 30 or 40 existing methods of inventors being denied or defrauded of patent rights will cause the decline of the U.S. innovation lead, however, this company that Kappos has headed has the worst history of legal maneuverings in order to gain control of inventor intellectual material and is yet another company that refuses to deal with inventors, therefore, he shouldn’t be paid from the proceeds of the inventors that have had their legal rights defeated. My new patent proposals are an attempt to prove the corruption of the past by improving the inventor determination methods of the future. Although, I can do this from the past using invention clusters to loosely tie the inventions together.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | May 05, 2009 at 10:26 AM

In response to the Top Patent Firms, As it is with many large corporations, Mr. Kappos’ leadership at IBM is with a firm that refuses to deal with small entities. IBM has not dealt fairly with small entities in the past. While this firm has one of the worst reputations, I don’t feel that any major corporation executives should be in these PTO executive positions because it constitutes a conflict of interest in that corporate mentality has been to squeeze the little guy out of the deal by defeating him at the patent office or in court. In the Global Procurement portion of their website, it clearly states that they will not accept submissions of patent and white papers or any ideas for any reason. In the capacity of PTO leadership he could continue this policy by awarding patents to corporate entities instead of independent inventors or small entities who are entitled to the patent as he would be part of the patent awarding decision making process. IBM like many corporations used many of my intellectual materials without authorization.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | May 05, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Until we have genuine patent reform, our system will continue to place all of the marketable patents in the wrong name. You can’t have a system that you call ethical that allows conception back dating and alleged R&D startup without registering intellectual materials with the patent office.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | May 05, 2009 at 01:30 PM

to malcolm. Cant blame for your skeptisism although on this one you dont know what end is up.It tales several weeks to months of study to become convinced of the theory of the worlds only inventor of significance. However after a diligent study you realize its true and the ods of it being not so quickly exceed D.N.A.to astrinomical to those with a non predguical mind.Start on our website if the want the true story of invention conceptions.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | May 05, 2009 at 03:15 PM

any time you have invention stiffeling proposals such as (trolls) patent litigation partner elimination inventors dont have the potential of getting paid. Companies will refuse to deal with independant inventors and try to hire so they can get a slavery employment agreement so they can also refuse to deal and steal everything from the inventor.If this doesent work then they can exploit his lack of ability to finance and steal inventions by his inability to reduce to practice.The non-invention practiceing inventor is vital to human advancement because those inventions cant be concieved elsewhere we need to keep them busy in patent writing.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.worldsonlyinventorofsignificancearguably.com | Apr 30, 2009 at 03:49 PM

There is little that can be done about low quality patents.185000 per year are trash because of the inability of the inventors to conceive high quality patents (there incapable of it).Of the few that are marketable there all fought over with all of them going into the wrong name.Until we improve inventorship determination methods there is no sense in the few? good inventors of filing anything.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.worldsonlyinventorofsignificancearguably.com | Apr 30, 2009 at 04:35 PM

Anon patent application grading on filing is the way to accomplish this raising filing fees only harms the little guy.Most of the filers will abandon a trash patent once they realize that its worthless.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.worldsonlyinventorofsignificancearguably.com | May 01, 2009 at 02:53 PM

Hay does anyone want to buy the worlds top patents Ive got all the worlds top unconcieved potentally and a dozen concieved on file.That is if your actually willing to pay for them.I have term to describe the opposite of nonpracticeing entities sipo stolen intellectual property owners or developer thefters not inventors.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.worldsonlyinventorofsignificancearguably.com | May 02, 2009 at 12:30 PM

To conrad wile 95% are garbage the other 5% represent all of human advancement since we were esentially monkeys foraging through the woods looking for grubs and snakes and sleeping on the ground.All we see except ground sky and water is from 4inventors and many developers and workers.to co bloggers thanks I am trying to defeat this new proposal I think i will have to write the the new reform act bill myself to get a good one.I am e mailing and faxing the congressmen them but they dont respond.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.worldsonlyinventorofsignificancearguably.com | May 02, 2009 at 07:42 PM

The granting of a patent does not grant monopoly rights. Correct and far from it because it lacks the monitization to develop or gain control over the market that it creates.Big business likes to exploit this by refusing to deal thereby making it worthless so it can be picked up free.although not a monopoly it grants the exclusive rights to manufacture to its creator without witch there would be no invention at all and therefor no one would enjoy the benefits of it.The consumers are not obligated to buy the product so they should not have any complaint about the patent rights given the inventor because it is his intellectual material and if they want patents they can get one on their own brilliant creations of there mind.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.worldsonlyinventorofsignificancearguably.com | May 03, 2009 at 09:40 PM

Swearing behind should not be generally accepted if it’s more than 90 days previous to the first application. Except where duress is involved. The vast majority of these close patents filings involve espionage so filing dates, invention clusters and provisional application additions must be considered as the most accurate determination methods for inventorship. With due diligence and reduction to practice requirements still in tact inventors still are having there civil rights violated by the theft of there intellectual materials. This also stops the inventions from salability since big business knows it can get them for free.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.worldsonlyinventorofsignificancearguably.net | Jun 05, 2009 at 09:38 AM

I think the judges comments are true and accurate and represent a human advancement positive outlook. Accomplishing these goals may not be as easy due to innovation retartive forces at work in business and government positions. Probably the most innovation retartive force at work is the present patent reform legislation under consideration by the U.S. Congress. It contains nothing that is needed and everything that isn’t needed for progressive patent reform. One of the major factors is inventorship determination methods. Presently much of what is U.S. intellectual material is being claimed as being invented in foreign countries. Due to this, they are essentially stealing the intellectual property by their false claims, thereby retarding innovation and the integrity of their countries financial justice system. Until this barrier is overcome, we cannot have a genuine global integritis patent system. My new patent reform proposals contain the methods of accomplishing these goals. We should unceremoniously dump the present patent reform legislation into the garbage where it belongs. Anti-inventor legislation cannot possibly produce anything except innovation retardation and violation of the civil rights of the inventors and continued slavery. Employers have absolutely no right to an employee’s inventions. They are the employee’s intellectual property in accordance with the employee’s civil rights. Required inventor employer/employee partnerships is the only legitimate and fair way to address the situation of invention conception on company time and property. Also proposed legislation that allows stranger companies to steal inventions from inventor’s estates will only cause the inventors to be murdered for their intellectual property.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Aug 28, 2009 at 11:27 AM

I think that the direction that Mr. Kappos is heading is the correct one. However, further improvement towards a progressive patenting system could be obtained with an increased focus on those inventions with purpose and usefulness, namely those that will become valuable and marketable products, business methods, and services. Patentable subject matter, when it produces a valuable product, should become patentable or else our patent system cannot realize its full potential of promoting human advancement. Another important issue is not disqualifying an applicant patent application due to imperfection of the complete required elements of the clerical text. The retention of the intellectual materials contained in the application as being the applicant’s intellectual property not to be forfeited to big business is the key to promoting the trust and integrity of the USPTO Office in the eyes of the applicant and the public. I also feel that there should be a program for patent fee deferment of issuance fees of up to five years, in cases of near indigence, for select inventions that are deemed by the USPTO to become marketable products. This will help to encourage indigent inventor equality with large corporations and provide the incentive and ability for all US citizens to participate in our patent system in conjunction with their civil rights that are now being financially denied. This is of course, is in addition to my other proposal that actually funds select patent development and business startup cost, to launch small business entrepreneurs that otherwise would be denied financing through the SBA due to their two year lack of business profit records.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Aug 28, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Subject: Kappos "Earn Accelerated Examination Rights by Abandoning Worthless Applications"

Obviously not a good plan accelerated examination is nessary to begin a lawsuit against infringers and patent thiefs This concept ties giving up good applications(To be stolen by other patent thieves)to pay for the right to sue on others.It is also lopsided in favor of wealthy big businesses. It presently takes 10 to 23 years to litagate these thefts in the courts

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | Sep 20, 2009 at 07:23 PM

Now how about some good ideas offering to refund examination fees is good but not as good as not requiring them in the first place Just take the intellectual material and put it in storage for a filing fee. If it becomes economically viable then some one is bound to steal it then a suit can start immediatly after notification and trials start at a maximum of two years.And Pto can make money from money making patents by charging higher rates for yearly maintence fees based on the profitability totals of item sales.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Sep 20, 2009 at 07:48 PM

If mr kapos doesent want the agency involved in judging the viability of the patent good, fair,poor this would only be a recomondation of course then they could grant accelerated examination by the appearence on the market of the item in question proving someone considers the product valuable even if its not the inventor he can at least start his suit for patent theft. the other importaant thing is immediate examination revenues as a method of revenue for the office these examinations establish previous non existence of the patentable item previously by internet and worldwide patent database checks helping to establish first to invent status thereby eliminating fraudulant inventorship claims.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | Sep 21, 2009 at 03:01 PM

Patently-O October 8, 2009

Subject: USPTO Fees: Look for Increases

Attention: David Kappos, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

If increases in fees are necessary the only just thing to do is quadruple corporate fees according to there ability to pay. With any extra money establish a legal fund to level the playing field in court for small entities unable to afford infringement lawsuits. This will eliminate the need for patent trolls. Of course burn the patent reform act because it promotes murder of inventor’s theft of intellectual property slavery obstruction of justice fraud civil rights violations and does nothing to deal with the present atrocities of the system.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | Oct 08, 2009 at 03:39 PM

Subject: Survey of the Disruptive Impact of a First-to-File Switch

The first thing wrong is using the term disruptive to describe correcting fraud and corruption First to file was invented by me to eliminate being frauded for inventions. Foreign countries wanted to know how to get me to file in their country.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | Nov 12, 2009 at 05:34 PM

Since revealing my new patent reform act foreign countries know even more about fair and honest methods of determining inventorship so they will win the economic battle to attract inventors to their countries and leave our corruption of jackals in the dust.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | Nov 12, 2009 at 05:47 PM

Subject: Survey of the Disruptive Impact of a First-to-File Switch

Regarding director Kappos’ references to the reform bills minimal changes to the process for inventorship determination that we now use, the reality is that the system is in a state of awarding patents into the incorrect name 100% of the time or nearly 100% of the time in instances where valuable patents are at issue. These patents of course are the only ones that are worth filing and the only ones that will result in new products coming onto the market. The fairly tale of simultaneous non-collaborative invention needs to be realized and be the subject of necessary legislation changes in addition to the 30 or 40 other methods that inventors are cheated out of their inventions and that are not dealt with in the present legislation. See our website to see all of the needed changes and why the present proposals are absolutely despicable. The fear of losing an invention to the deficiencies of the present and proposed system of inventorship determination represent an extreme detriment to human advancement through innovation and needs to be corrected immediately. Also civil rights violations of inventors must be corrected so they can breathe free as our other citizens do.

http://inventingconsultantcreator.net/MRTPatentLegislationChanges.htm

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Nov 16, 2009 2:08:30 PM

They have taken away one of the few legal playing field leveling methods available to the defeated inventors to get settlement from the financial giant corperations.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | Dec 05, 2009 at 07:29 PM

One argument that the appellate court may not be considering in transferring the case, is the influence that the place of manufacture, and the financial impact of the jobs being located in the same jurisdiction as the trial can have an impact on the jury due to friends and relatives associated with the company and the impact of the company moving out of the district can have on the local economy. Also, the volume of financially interested witnesses can work to tip the scales of justice in the wrong direction. The jurisdiction should be a neutral one such as the east district of Texas that may have specialized in patent related issues or the venue where the intellectual property was conceived “first to invent – the ones that didn’t receive the manufacturing jobs in their community”.

Another solution would be to try the case in another jurisdiction outside a reasonable commuting distance to eliminate the influence of the economic impact area i.e. 100 miles plus.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Dec 07, 2009 at 10:16 AM

With my new patent system the word integtrity fits and Harmonization should be a by product of non corruption. Using systems such as instant patent examination on filing worldwide establish correct inventorship coupled with instant internet checks for the existance of products on the market make a rock solid inventorship deteermination.The otheer factor is disallowing reasearch and development and not filing for one year before before recording intellectual materials.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | Dec 10, 2009 at 08:20 PM

The term system here is misleading all they are doing here is changing the term first to invent to first to file they aren't doing anything to improve inventorship acuracy My new plan does everything to do that witch should lead to harmonization if the other countries want a integritious system also.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | Dec 10, 2009 at 08:38 PM

Dec. 11, 2009
First-to-File versus First-Inventor-to-File

Director Kappos states that there is no risk of someone who learns of your invention beating you the patent office because they’re not an inventor. This of course is another fairy tale. All off the valuable patents are actually stolen using a large variety of methods including these ones and the only way to change these dismal statistics is to implement new inventorship determination methods as I have proposed in my new legislation. Obviously the one year grace period must go in a first-to-file system. It’s an unreasonable fairy tale to believe that someone is going to start a project in their garage and expect to maintain secrecy indefinitely without filing first before beginning R&D. This is the only creditable way of expecting patent granting on either a garage project or an industrial product. Everything else is a patent theft granting. The only way a non-first filer claim should be granted is in the instance of espionage or accidental divulgement and in this instance, the initial disclosure document program needs to be reinstated. This filing should be allowed in hand writing and be required to be recorded or post marked within three days of each other in order to establish the inventorship dispute. Also, the cost should only be $65.00 and allowed to be used with the existing EFS system.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | Dec 14, 2009 at 10:01 AM

Dec. 11, 2009
First-to-File versus First-Inventor-to-File

In my effort to create inventorship determination methods and recognize the potential failings of the present system, we must realize that the EFS is likely hacked and infiltrated both during transmission and in the files of the PTO. Therefore we must develop additional documenting methods including the actual inventor’s advancement of an original conception through improvement and expansion in order to prove intellectual domination as a method of inventorship determination through multiple documented improvements. The return of an initial disclosure system combined with allowing multiple entries during the one year provisional patent period will greatly improve the actual inventor’s odds of patent granting. Also a list of optional evidencing methods in the event of loss of integrity of the office through incorrect granting will ensure the correct inventor will still be found by allowing inventors, who have had three patents denied, the right to change systems to a “90 days notice of intention to file system” that allows a patent to be filed after the expiration of the time limit in a particular category of invention and receive an immediate inventorship determination through the lack of filing of the same invention by any other parties filing at that time.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Dec 14, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Dec 14, 2009
Cases where Written Description is Satisfied, but Enablement is Lacking

This situation is one that divides inventorship from invention development. Issue here is what is fair to both. The other issue is what obligation the developers have to include the inventor in any perceived lacking of enablement to complete the invention. Another is that the developers are trying to cut the inventor out of the deal and steal the invention Witch I suspect is the normal situation. The conclusion should be rather clear for judges or legislators the developers should not engage in development without cooperation and written agreement with the inventor. Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Dec 14, 2009 at 08:41 PM

Dec 14, 2009
Cases where Written Description is Satisfied, but Enablement is Lacking

In cases where patents by independent inventors are lacking enablement, patents should be awarded to the actual inventor for a development period of twenty years then if an inventor and a development team are successful, a 14 year patent should issue. In the event that no developers are interested in a development agreement with the inventor, rights can be auctioned at any time during the twenty years after issuance. The prime time is years after issuance if the invention is good. As the years tick by in the twenty years, the likely hood of development diminishes therefore the minimum percentage of profits should accordingly be reduced to spur agreement. After the twentieth year, the invention would be free to any developers. This system is vital to maintain inventor interest in the financial profitability incentive to produce invention thereby advancing all fields of human endeavor.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Dec 15, 2009 at 09:48 AM

Dec 15, 2009
Judge versus Jury (Again): Who Should Decide the Question of Obviousness?

I think any new invention is obviously not obvious since it hasent been invented for three hundred and seventyfive million years previously.If the golf ball is an improvement on the existing grant the patent. If it sells in a superior manor to its competitors grant the patent.Usually they are the ones who want it declared obvious because they werent smart enough to think of it thereselves.They should recieve sanctions for poor sportsmanship.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Dec 15, 2009 at 07:53 PM

Supreme Court Decisions

Supreme Court Voids Campaign Spending Curbs

MSNBC Newsvine

Michael R. Thomas

This decision by the court certainly looks like they didn’t have the other side of the story until now. Unfortunately the decision will do the same thing during elections and votes on important issues The monetary blitz of corporate air time will violate the civil rights of freedom of speech to the monetary underdogs and the citizens right to know the other side of the issues causing other civil rights violations to citizens through corrupt candidate election and laws like this one.

Reply #7 – Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:23 PM EST


March 30, 2010
The Relevance of Invention Date in Patent Prosecution: Part IV (Survey)

Unless I am mistaken the patent reform of 2010 eliminates the term first inventor to file. This eliminates all sembalance to awarding the patent to the inventor and legalizes intellectual property theft.So the leahey hatch team is promoting crime.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Mar 26, 2010 at 03:47 PM


I would bet foreign patent system would like to eliminate proving inventorship after issue because invention starts here with me and everything they claim to have invented was first invented by my self. the fairest inventorship method I have concieved is probably the lockered live invention uspto televised The four method republican Mccain plan is probably second best of course also invented by myself.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Mar 26, 2010 at 03:27 PM


March 30, 2010
The Relevance of Invention Date in Patent Prosecution: Part V (Strategies)

Swearing behind should never be allowed especially in corperation situations. Derivement due to indegence for large scale independant inventors who have been cheated acess to the system should be allowed.

Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Mar 30, 2010 at 09:18 AM

Patently-O Bits and Bytes 20100706
Congressional Action on Patent Reform:

Business Method Patents should have been issued long ago. They represent some of the most valuable patentable subject matter conceivable. If patents are not granted, the big businessmen who can dominate the field with money are allowed to steal the subject without compensation. Also the public is denied the usage in many instances through non-conception. Also, if the public doesn’t want to pay for the new item they don’t have to buy. Bilsky’s decision was correct because those were not likely the inventors. I still am not sure what it was that was invented or its usages.
Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Jul 02, 2010 at 03:56 PM Michael R. Thomas,

I clicked on your link provided with your post and clicked on the two links at the top left-hand corner of your homepage. Question: Don't you believe in the use of paragraphs?
Posted by: James | Jul 02, 2010 at 04:53 PM

Observation: Michael R. Thomas hasn't invented paragraphs yet.
Posted by: ping | Jul 02, 2010 at 05:50 PM

I like the final "I stillam not sure what it was though that was invented or its usages", though.
Posted by: pong | Jul 02, 2010 at 06:27 PM

ping, we agree on Thomas. See, that wasn't so hard.
Posted by: Ned Heller | Jul 02, 2010 at 09:06 PM

Very very few law firms are hiring. Sad state of affairs.
Posted by: fish bones | Jul 03, 2010 at 05:43 PM

To James: Yes, I believe in paragraphs, my budget is tight so other more important things get done first. How did you like the magnitude of the text? To Ping: No, I didn’t invent paragraphs but my great great grandfather did. You need to click on my website in top left under, world’s four inventors of significance. To Pong: I should say that I understand its method of hedging that is 100 years old and hedging is very unpopular now since the mortgage meltdown.
Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Jul 04, 2010 at 08:46 AM

Yes I believe in paragraphs my budget is tight" Damm the expense of paragraphs. What we really need is for someone to invent cheap paragraphs. Ida have to say that you rgreat great grandfather f'd up inventing them to be so costly.
Posted by: ping | Jul 04, 2010 at 09:54 AM

I’d be able to afford a whole room full of website secretaries proof read my text if only we could get Senator Leahy’s patent reform into the garbage can and get mine through congress. Is the Obama supported Leahy Patent Reform responsible for the Gulf Oil Spill severity? Was Obama is boasting that, under the new reform measures, inventors will not even be guaranteed a patent? By not adopting my reform measures, he’s continuing a tradition of cheating inventors using every dirty trick in the book. If someone filed a method of shutting off or reducing the oil spill quicker, they would be cheated of a reward for their good deed by various methods under the present and proposed system. Couple this with BP’s refusal to pay for good ideas and the refusal to pay for information and the fact that in international waters, other companies steal it and use it without payment and you can begin to see the true totally discouraging situations that exist in the present intellectual property world. Is Obama generating any new significant new jobs in the private sector? No, he’s not dedicating one thin dime to promoting invention conception or the financial rewarding of invention conception. Without these new inventive concepts, there can’t be any significant recovery. The lack of invention conceptions in the six years is only matched by the lack of invention conception during the depression era.
Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Jul 06, 2010 at 10:51 AM

CHALLENGE.GOV: Prizes as an Additional Incentive Layer, Sep 08, 2010

(The role of a patent system as compared to other pro innovation initiatives).These people are clearly not of a caliber too be running the white house. Offering incentives prizes to augment the patent system is good. But Instead of a patent system is grossly innovation retartive and corrupt and unconstitutional. Also their selection of particular categories for prizes is grossly innovation retartive. However, selecting the top invention based on top human advancement importance is an innovation progressive contest. Clearly financially struggling inventors need funds to develop their inventions and bring them to market so big business will not steal them for cheap.
Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Sep 09, 2010 at 10:12 PM

It looks like the challenge.gov program has good intentions but is constructed much like the wasteful government grants programs they need to award prizes to the submitter of the top importance award categories.
Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Sep 09, 2010 at 10:58 PM

I wonder who gets the intellectual property rights after submission to these contests. Hopefully it’s not a rip off. For 25,000 they are only going to get dopy school kids. Clearly they need a separate professional grade level prize category. The thought of our military’s innovation budgets being so underfunded is scary. The only thing being scarier is the potential corruption in awarding this tiny sum.
Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Sep 10, 2010 at 11:15 AM

I would challenge the inventors of this Mickey Mouse system to create a real adequately funded challenge like categories for most jobs created or large scale economically feasible green projects, health, longevity, space colonization environment damage reversal, hard labor reducing, productivity improving, US economic world standing improvements etc.
Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | Sep 14, 2010 at 03:13 PM

Ianie, all that’s needed is my proposed changes to the present patent system and throw Leahy’s in the trash. Of course changing attitudes in big business is critical to. They want to steal it all like they have been doing with nothing for the inventor. I’ve been putting a new request in my patents for 15% of the savings to the consumer in my patent applications it looks like it sparked a bunch of states to ban the concept with regards to gasoline sales on my non-provisional. I requested no sales of my energy saving product so that the citizens will not receive the 85% savings so the legislators burnt themselves and retarded the whole field of invention. Dumb Huh!
Posted by: Michael R. Thomas | Sep 15, 2010 at 05:47 PM

To Ianae: Dumb Huh! Sorry I misspelled which is not uncommon for me. Presently, the application is in an unpublished status so I’m still disbelievingly optimistic of obtaining business partners to bid on future startup rights concerning this patent so I would need a credit worthy application to discuss the merits of the patent with. The technology is not so revolutionary although the resulting fuel savings are. Clearly your emphasis should be on correcting the injustice situation of the present law by amending the law which I asked the Governor of the state of Florida, Charlie Crist, to do before he signed the legislation. As far as the term (still allow us to us it for the good of humanity), clearly your emphasis should be on promoting progressive patent reform. The use of the term ‘for the good of humanity’ is nice but is often used to conceal the unnecessary rip off of inventors. There’s plenty of money generated and saved to pay the inventor except legislators and others want to devise new methods of stealing intellectual properties or obtaining the usage for nothing and pocketing large profits. Clearly inventors cannot continue their great work without compensation. However, this theory is becoming a capitalism incentive killing method, particularly as R&D departments close down and the greedy thieves move out of the country with their ill gotten gains, gutting America of its greatness and throwing us into a permanent recession, not to mention creating a huge black hole in human advancement.
Posted by: Michael R. Thomas www.inventingconsultantcreator.net | Sep 16, 2010 at 12:57 PM