1. The present reform proposal does nothing to improve inventorship determination methods. On inventions of high value, we need to begin the inventorship process by recording intellectual materials before research and development can begin. Thereby; establishing who was the first one to invent. Our present system allows big business or other inventors to affectively jump in on any valueable invention and claim inventorship based on theft of intellectual materials from them or projects already under research and development. Another method of committing fraud against inventors is to claim the invention existed previously in order to defeat the issuance of a patent, thereby stealing the usage of it for nothing. This "First to File System" as proposed, shifts the enphasis to being "First to File" eventhough; it doesn't mean the actual inventor is the filer. The "First to File" produces the wrong inventor whenever accidential devulgement or intentional devulgement has occured. Absolute novelty is the only accurate method of determining inventorship. This proposal does not ban the concept of discussing of the original idea before patenting. It also produces no guaranteed method of eliminating the potential of intentionally stolen intelectual materials being recorded in the wrong name.
2. This proposal does not deal with the concept of elimiating the patent board since inception this board has been staffed with individuals who have obvious conflict of interest problems with regard to the recognition of a master inventors accomplishments (They represent some of the inventors who stoled my inventions.).
3. This proposed legislation removes inventions from inventors estates without compensation therefore denying the estates the right to auction these intellectual materials to the highest bidders.
4. This legislation through the inforcement of intellectual material sign-off contracts helps employers who have used death threat intimidations to force inventor rights sign-offs under illegal duress.
5. This proposal does nothing to establish master inventor security to prevent the masive number of inventions that have been stolen to continue to occur.
6. This program eliminates the promise of the issuance of a patent in exchange for the sharing of the intellectual materials with the public.
7. The proposed will eliminate the promise of fairness to inventors with regards to the reissuance of a patent in the event that the origianl patent was awarded to a non-inventor.
8. The present legislation has no provision regarding the shutting down of companies or seizing products of infringers. All too often, the infringers produce the product until judgments are passed against them. Then close down and disappear with the money so the judgment is worthless in attempting to enforce it. Infringement damages or plant closings should be should be assessed automatically by the USPTO and judgments not immediately paid should result in the closing of plants in violation.
9. Present legislation does nothing to eliminate the judicial disqualification of patent granting where two individual are in dispute over inventorship.
10. The present legislation does nothing to change the policy of patent nullification where innocent second parties have been denied original patent granting's. This policy denies forever the correct rightful claim to a patent.
11. This proposal eliminates the ability of plaintiffs to file in the venue of their choice and in neutral venue environments. This will force plaintiffs into hostile local venues where big business has many friends in high places such as judges and families of employees and citizens who recognize the economic benefit of having their business in the local community. Plaintiffs who are already the underdogs having to defeat top corporate attorneys will have the scales of justice turned against them further.
12. The first to file system would ruin our system of incentive to inventors to advance our society as they have for the last 200 years. The first to file system effectively eliminates any financial award or consideration regarding the concept of inventorship and awards the patent to the first individual who has stolen the idea from intellectual material creator.

13. By eliminating the right of interference proceedings in the patent system the legislation would remove the right of the actual inventor to even contest the theft of his intellectual materials.

14. Our current system is bad enough in this respect with its requirements of reducing an invention to practice. This reduction to practice concept allows unscrupulous individuals to use information gained through eavesdropping & visual methods of espionage in order to steal material from the actual inventor.

15. The legislation under proposal is nothing more than a blanket legitimizing grand theft of intellectual materials.

16. The provision of the reform act that deals with the authority of the PTO director to create further regulations would certainly appear to offer a blank check to big business now in control of existing patents.

17. Obviously the provision of the Patent Law change dealing with making it easier to file a patent application without the inventor’s cooperation grants the wholesale right to steal the inventors’ intellectual materials and eliminate him completely from the concept of monetary compensation, thus destroying the inventors’ incentive to create the intellectual materials to begin with.

In order to form a more perfect patent system the following changes to the patent system will insure America’s leadership in prosperity through the 21st century. These changes will improve inventor’s chances of financial reward for sharing their creations with the public. Presently, inventors are being stifled by far too many manners of being cheated of their intellectual materials. We as a nation cannot expect to stimulate the creativity of our inventor (s) by retaining and adding to a system that has so many methods of cheating inventor’s already in place and proposed. Our present system allows patent theft in the following manners, back dating after the original application using bogus manufactured evidence, plus hired witnesses and falsified note books to prove inventions, theft of intellectual material disputes arising at the time of inventing and filing, including armed and unarmed intimidations, false threats of prosecution for continuing to claim inventors status, theft of invention by accidental disclosures(verbalization in conversations unintentional and intentional),use of dress and intimidation to obtain intellectual materials, promises of sharing money that never occurred and the use of intellectual materials with out permission written or verbal or intention of paying and an attitude of you can’t prove anything and/or false accusations of you’re a liar. Also extortion accusations using law breaker and false sex charges accusations. We must act now to close these loop holes and provide the incentive for top quality patents to be produced keeping the USA the number one producer of intellectual materials of significance. These proposed changes will also eliminate low quality patent problems and volume through an initial system of grading patents to eliminate duds and to eliminate vague and evasive filings by rejecting applications that are incomplete and denying intellectual material status to those applications that do not contain any new ideas or solve problems. Also the problem of patenters attempting to restrict moderate to large areas of fields of invention by filing patents presenting problems with no solutions indicated this type of patent must be recognized and rejected as containing no intellectual materials. Also chemical and pharmaceutical inventions would initially be accepted as intellectual materials and ownership rights would be established for 20 years if or when the material in question was able to be turned into a useful control group tested drug or a chemical composition having a useful purpose for the material in manufacture or other areas these materials would then become patentable combinations this would largely reduce low quality patent issuances and subsequent back logs. Also the establishment of security for inventors will eliminate potential for intimidation. The taking over by the patent office of auctioning and enforcing patents and payments will dramatically increase the number of quality patent filings being received by the office. The present system that creates far too many loop holes of unfairness. The Reform Act in its present form presents two methods of cheating inventors of their intellectual materials (118.)(filings by other than inventors) would create another method of stealing patents by claiming to file a patent in the original inventors name and then filing the patent in the secondary party’s name. This could allow the blame or responsibility for stolen intellectual material to be shifted to the original person who is now missing or never existed. Also the term obligation to assign could be used to steal inventions under dress. In the event of enforcement of life time employer invention rights sign off agreements. A new function of the patent office or branch offices could be the preparation and filing of patents by US PTO branch staffers as long as the staffers are willing to sign off on their involvement in the creation of the invention application. Sound proof booths, voice recorders, and head phones and individuals could maintain secrecy, draftsman could draw drawings also in the US PTO office. Branch offices could be established on the West Coast, one in Florida (Ft. Myers preferably), one in the Northeast and one in Michigan/ Ohio area to service large population areas. Based on the study of inventor’s state of residence and study of yellow pages listings pertaining to inventor’s inventions. The fairness of the new system after these new proposals are in acted will take away the bad and put in the good in order to attract the top inventor(s) and all inventors to our system in order to provide America a continuing basis for the addition of wealth producing businesses to our economy we will continue economics prosperity in the advancement of health improvements, life style improvements and improvements in the life spand and quality of life. This new legislation would greatly reduce crime and restore integrity to our patent system. Keeping in mind that inventors primarily in the last 217 years have brought us from nothing to where we are today, myself and 3 grandfathers from the Robert’s family, in my belief, have been the producers of the entire collection of intellectual patentable materials, from 1790 through the present, all though receiving little credit or compensation. This legacy of the high federal master inventors needs to be recognized and respected for what it is, the designers of our entire modern society. Congress and the public should always remember that the majority of proposals to change legislation are actually sponsored by big business interest attempting to legally extract intellectual materials and other compensations from the system.

1. Establish a first to file system that does not allow a one year delay in filing from the invention date to the filing date. This provision would eliminate discussions regarding the patent content in order to reduce the number of inventorship disputes that may arise from the inventorship provision. Under the present proposal any discussions could be cause of the wrong person filing for the invention. The first to file system should work on secrecy and based on the ability to prove being the inventor by disclosing the product first, when no one else has been capable of it. (note): This system will only work where the proof evolves from the concept that if it is not presently in production in the US or well known to the majority of citizens that it did not exist previously.
2. Inventor security, this would establish a security branch within the patent office to protect the master inventor and individuals deemed to be major sub inventors from intimidation and thefts of their intellectual materials.
3. Once or Twice yearly deadline filing and invention auctioning system, U.S. PTO public view auctioning system and U.S. PTO financial inventor’s financial collection system. First day of autumn and first day of spring or first legal work day there after. In the event that these post deadline filings become too crowded the PTO may elect to divide the work load into more filing deadline dates and in public form filings. First day of winter and first day of summer deadline filing dates could be set up for only chemical pharmaceutical and software patents in order to ease high volume loads at the other filing deadline public assemblies. All these could be held once yearly with the specific categories divided up. Also auctions could be held by the US PTO with internet involvement as well as public form bidding by number. Registration for these post deadline invention filing assemblies maybe cancelled or restricted to once or twice yearly, depending on individuals wishing to use the system. Registrant deadline for participation should be 10 days before the holding of the public form post deadline filings.
4. This system would take over financial dealings from inventors including collection of auction proceeds also licensing agreements and patent enforcement matters. MONEY WOULD BE DEPOSITED INTO INVENTORS ACCOUNT WITH ALL ENFORCEMENTS CARRIED OUT BY THE U.S. PTO. Payments made will no longer be able to be transferred out of the country to unrecoverable venues (banks). Monthly payments or approved reinvestment financial plan for large amounts of monies received. Spending limits equal to 1/20 of the total patent lifetime amount received will help to ensure no repeated shortages due to invalid inventorships.
5. The elimination of any backdating inventions that claims the product or invention existed previously but became obsolete for any reason is not in production today. An invention is considered to be non existing unless can be shown to be in mass production available to the public, in publications having minimum of 100,000 copies and individuals are able to produce magazines, newspaper advertising and telephone directories non altered or tampered (originals) with showing the product of service, Also known factory or business location address supported documentation established by photographs, original non altered, county land records and land, title and tax records will be required to stop the issue of a patent.
6. The deadline for filing normal patent applications will expire at 5pm the day before the beginning of the acceptance of post deadline patent applications. The post deadline applications will begin to be filed the following working day at 9am and will not be subject to deprivation hearings (it will be considered that their time to file these alleged ideas has expired and that they are not the actual inventors of the ideas yet to be filed) based on the arguments relating to stolen intellectual materials that the alleged inventor cannot remember or research development materials that were allegedly stolen (these materials should be stored in locked lockers previous to the beginning of post deadline application acceptance start up).
7. The day following the patent applications deadline filings, applicants filing under the deadlines filing statues will begin filing applications with the patent office records all incoming patents, the patents are displayed to the public as they are recorded and over the internet and readers are asked to grade the patents good, fair, poor, vague and evasive. By 100 top patent review board experts using electronic voting records with paper trail.
8. The master inventor files last after sub inventors and all other inventors. In order to ensure integrity all patents must be recorded in an 8 hour period while the public is in attendance. After the recording of the last patent and the posting to the net and the PTO records anyone having materials kept in secret will be allowed to retrieve their materials from the lockers and present written documentation that been in locked lockers throughout the patent recording process a comparison of the locker materials with the recorded applications will begin a deprivation hearing dispute, this will be quickly resolved before the issuance of a patent with the master inventor prevailing any situation that he’s involved in. all materials to be entered into lockers must occur before 9am no materials maybe added or subtracted after the first application is accepted by the US PTO. PTO may restrict the patent to 3 pages in length to avoid paper work and to utilize displayed space. Each new application could be displayed to the public as it’s received as long as all applications are locked in locker previous to the start of the first after deadline filing application.
9. Individuals having secret projects under research and development may place files in locked wire- mesh locked file sized lockers in public view with security during the passing of the filing deadline in order to preserve the secret of their project after the passing of the deadline. In the event of someone else the following filings the individuals must immediately notify the patent to remove the written documentation from the locker in order to make a comparison with an application that has already been filed in order to make a comparison and establish and make a cause for a deprivation comparison as to who the inventor is. Individuals known to be in the proximus location to the master inventor will be ruled against in this proceeding. The master inventor who will be entering his inventions last will also be required to have his inventions to be stored in the lockers before the beginning of the after deadline filings.
10. Intimidation of the master inventor through threats and actions of intimidation will be considered a felony. Punishable in accordance to the federal law acts of treason against the United States law and order. At the inventors request up to 25 men will be made available at any given time. Master inventor will be responsible for hiring and firing these individuals.
11. The elimination of inventor and co-inventor clauses. Since only one person is capable of creating the inventive thought there for there cannot be co- inventors. There could be an inventor and a developer. Co- Developers or possibly sub-inventors, these would be considered persons who combine existing inventions and prior art to create a new assembly, the master inventor would need to be consulted in theory in order to create any new type of sub-invention, could work together on an invention. Sub inventors never produce an invention together only one person’s mind can produce the invention there for the concept of co-inventors is incorrect.
12. Changing of 1995 patent legislation that allows the theft of intellectual materials after one year if inventors are unable to meet manufacturing type documents and successfully reduced to practice even if actually described in original patent application. This would change under intellectual materials if specific enough to not restrict areas of invention surrounding it, this provision is descended to stop R and D teams and manufacturers refusing to negotiate with the inventor regarding paying for the use of the inventors patent intellectual materials and conspiring to wait until his intellectual material expire in one year. This time limit does not run concurrently with the 20 year patent term that may be eventually granted to the fully developed patent.
13. Illegal dress, this provision should be written to make it illegal during the course of employment or as a requirement of initial employment the signing off of rights on intellectual materials produced during the life time of the employee or during the entire period (24 hours per day) or during working hours except for the following exception, individuals hired for research and development or for the reason of inventing should have those ideas produced retained by the company subject to an agreement of a 1/3-2/3 profit after all expenses business partnership. All other persons outside of research and development would not be subject to any agreement at all pertaining to their inventative abilities.(except in the instance when a regular employee makes an invention that would cause their employers line to become obsolete they would be required to enter into 1/3-2/3 invention partnership with their employer ). This provision will eliminate the suppression of inventative genius and restore the financial incentive in these individuals to produce high quality patents. By eliminating these outdated forced intellectual material employment agreements. These are clearly a throw back to the days of slavery and have no place in today’s society. Unknown consequences provision this would make illegal to approach anyone and request for them to produce intellectual materials under any manner of speaking armed or unarmed in a friendly or unfriendly manner due to unknown consequences of denial of disclosing the inventative material (dress of inventor will be assumed). Also in the event that inventative material are disclosed in a conversation the application will contain a prominent warning of the duty of canter involved in disclosing the real actual producer of intellectual material. Also punishment stipulations will be printed clearly visibly to avoid intellectual material thefts.
14. Retention of inventors rights to reissuance of a new patent in the event that new evidence determines that the original inventorship was incorrect this provisions guaranties the rights of the actual; inventor who was wrongfully denied the issuance of a patent by thieves claiming to be the inventor. The continuation of this provision upholds the promise of fairness in our patent system and offers compensation to those wrongfully decided against. This also constitutes justice in the patent system, because the consumers are not obligated to purchase those products or services that are being repatented. The products and the product would not exist if it was not for the inventors sharing the idea with us. There for the product would not be available to the public anyways. The reissuance of the patent will simply determine which manufacturers will have the right to manufacturer the product for the next 20 years. The reissuance of these patents will also make patent examiners and perspective patent purchasers more aware of attempting to determine who the actual inventor would have been.
15. Post patent retraction and re-issue hearings this procedure would allow new evidence of inventorship to be submitted in order to obtain a new patent when the inventor was deprived of the original patent due to circumstances such as, threat over insinuation of prosecution, extortion attempts using prosecution as a threat, promise of partnership betrayed, threat of murder or physical violence lack of security associated with lack of availability of security for inventor through the patent office and lack of ability to prove inventorship at the time that the invention originally occurred.
16. An additional 5 years on the life of the patent will be added to these patents in order to compensate for market flooding and rebuild potential profit margins to the point of patent sale ability. In order to eliminate damage to present patent holders reissued patents will start with expired patents 20 years +. 100 percent of the patents issued from 1953 to 1987 that are deemed to be still valuable will be reissued over a 10 year period. The master inventor would receive 33% of the profits after all expenses that he would have received had the patent been issued to the correct inventor to begin with. The new patents should be patent licensing agreements with existing companies the intent is to allow all manufacturing companies that governed by one of the new patents to stay in business and in competition with each other only that there would be a restriction of out put through each company based on their present market share. This restriction of units produced would continue until the new unit price became consumer acceptable. The amount of this price increase would amount to 33% +or – depending on the market for that particular item. This could also be applied if necessary as a surcharge at the time of product or restricted in retailer mark ups, the cost to the consumer would be only 1/3 of the costs of a reissued patent because a manufacturers are not receiving the normal 2/3 of the profits at all.
17. Patents issued from 1987 through 2007 will be reissued each year as they expire before being released to the public.
18. First inventor to file status exception in the instance of inventions where accidental devulgement inventorship disputes the intellectual property in these disputes will remain in the property of individual thought process. Methods of determining a dispute concerning this situation the individual filing first will be given prevential treatment provided that the individual is a known inventor the patent office in secrecy hold the application for three days before publishing in order give the other disputed inventor a chance to also file an application there by also establishing deprivation dispute in this situations the master inventor will be the winner of these disputes.
19. US PTO intellectual material registry. This would establish the concept of new ideas themselves having a value. In this situation because no fully described plan to accomplish the implementation of the idea is not necessarily included, this system could allow the inventor only limited monetary compensation due to the incompleteness at the time of auctioning procedure.
20. Improvements on the existing verses obsoleteness. The product improvements for which the patents have been filed in fairness to the consumer should be required to be purchased by the patent holder of the original product patent. In the event that the improvement results in the ability to charge additional money for the invention, the extra money received should be on a 1/3-2/3 of additional profits on the actual improved value of the existing product. The new improved product patenter should also have the right to hold off on patenting and selling the invention waiting for the expiration of the original patent in order that he could receive a larger amount of money after the patent expiration because of the improvement would obsolete the previous model, this could be accomplished by recording the improvement as intellectual material, exception to this rule where the public good is at stake such as energy conservation or the advancement of technologies or other deemed important situations. In these instance s the individual would receive an extended patent allowing usage, both for the normal 20 year period and what ever remaining length of the original 20 year patent on the original item.
21. This provision would require a report of all transfers of all businesses and all major loans and pertinent transactions of $10,000 or more and the where abouts from the proceeds for the sells and the approval from PTO of the proceeds usage in order to maintain an integrity of the patent system pertaining to the issuance of previous patents where inventorship issues have arisen. This would stop the investments of off shore trusts and any other unrecoverable venues (banks in foreign countries out of the influence of the US PTO or out of the inner bank recoverable funds counter leaning of deposits ability).
22. The elimination of a judicial disqualification due to inventorship disputes, the elimination of this option presently available to judges would be justifiable under this new provision. The present system of threats of refusing to issue a patent causes the under dog notably the individual who did not file first to have an insufficient perceived chance that any justice might occur regarding the disputed claim of inventorship. This provision essentially establishes that any arguing is considered useless and that the original first filer irregardless of the method of obtaining the original inventative idea will definitely not resolve in a patent being filed his name equals no sense in attempting to argue the case to begin with there for no justice procedure is actually available when judges have the option of pulling the patent and awarding it to nether one of the parties. Congress needs to consider this lack of justice available when considering the actions of reissuing the expired patents.
23. Chemical drug parent technologies provision this provision would establish the right of the original patenter of drugs and chemical compositions to a fair percentage of the profits from the development of new drugs and chemicals from the original drugs and chemicals. Also the developers or the inventors of the equipment without which the discovery of the new chemicals and drugs (would not have occurred), should share in the profits created from the new compositions similar to the provision regarding uniqueness and obsoleteness.
24. Energy savings compensation to inventors, this provision would establish that saving energy is good for the planet and conservation of resources and there for in addition to patents on the equipment and methods of conservation compensation 15% of the energy dollar value saved should be awarded in the form of an energy conservation credit for up to 20 years. In the interest of cost savings invented by producing a better method that causes a savings in materials costs, etc, will be the subject to 15% of the savings realized in addition to the normal patent for innovated concepts or machinery .
25. Change of determination of how an invention is granted the rules of obviousness should be changed to reflect more categories of cause of issuance of patents. If the invention has never been thought of and is of value and worth to the society and is likely to become manufactured or is a significant improvement on the existing in the instance no patent is presently enforced on the involved object. The term obviously should be regarded as too vague and potentially denying valuable products from coming to market the primary determining factor in awarding a patent should be its potential to produce commercial sales and to be useful or desirable product on the free market equals not an impractical invention.
26. The need for Deprivation proceedings would greatly be reduced in the new legislation the only situation in which an accidental or intentional disclosure has occurred under the new provisions if a inventorship dispute occurs claims received within 3 days of each other for the same item will be considered an immediate cause for a deprivation hearing to occur these procedures must occur before the issuance of a patent or even the status of intellectual material that is saleable at auction this would be considered accidental due to the improved ability through this legislation to actually receive a patent in the correct name and the improved awareness of the use dress in obtaining patents in previous years. There should be established a pre legislation deprivation proceeding in the event that the committee of congress through a study of history and study of invention clusters, etc. is unable to make a determination of establishment of a master inventor status for Michael R. Thomas. This post patent issued deprivation proceeding would establish a right to contest already issued patents in effect and expired patents that were in effect back to 1825 for the families of those individual master inventors who were denied rights of compensation due to defective judgments in that area and the reissuance of a patent in those instances of none obsoleteness. This would be accomplished under the new rules of new evidence associated with the master inventor theory. All patents issued under the new provision should have no deprivation proceedings allowed pertaining to all subject matters should be addressed before issuance. Hearings for the issue of obviousness should be determined by the original patent examiner and original application receiver rating good, fair, poor, etc, and should not be the cause of non issuances. In the event of the master inventor being involved he will be deemed the inventor automatically.
27. Charitable contribution and concealment of monies non-paid to the inventor. Only amounts totaling 66% of the proceeds resulting from the issuance of the patent will be allowed to be spent or retained by individuals found by the courts. To have used the materials with out authorization the spending or concealing of higher than these amounts will be considered intentional denial or theft as maybe determined by the courts.
28. The establishment of the theory of negligence or the conspiracy to defraud regarding the manner of conducting large scale transactions of companies who have derived their main products and monetary value base from patented products it would now be recognized that conducting large scale buy outs and accuisitions with out concern of where the funds are going to and/or if the deals can be called off due to inventorship problems would be considered insider trading information and there for subject to reversal of consimated deals monetary records should be turned in to the justice department plus patent office as far as where the funds are located and what the intended usage would be. The tracking of these funds should continue for a full 20 years in order to ensure the integrity of the system in amounts over $250,000.00 dollars.

1. Auctioning of the previous 6 months of patent applications after the deadline application filings will be auctioned to the highest bidder with a minimum reserve price set, bidders may bid partnership percentages or cash subject to restricted terms 50% of partnership must go to small businesses, and no profiteering by the purchase of patents.
2. World wide internet auction patent rights to be auctioned in each country where they are available through the internet and interconnected to the PTO.
3. See through bullet proof glass cubicles for inventors and sub-inventors.
4. Security for arriving inventors.
5. Open form type public seating 200 person minimum for auctions and deadline filing.
6. Master inventor last to file. In order to give other individuals a chance to file first, the master inventor will proceed last with his invention proceedings. These filings will be produced from a locked visible locker previous to the beginning of post deadline patent application filings at the auction the same day as the other applications are filed. All the patents will be recorded on microfilm and numbered, dated, time received.
7. In the event that too many applications are received during the first day of after deadline fling patent examiners will attempt to sort and grade patents received according to good, fair, poor, or rejected do to incompleteness or evasiveness (no intellectual materials detected) original ideas will be considered as intellectual materials, in the instance of rejection microfilms will be retained in a rejected file and filees will retain the rights to appeal this determination. Applications deemed good or fair will be processed to determine if they are original, first by typing in on the internet the title description, then checking a PTO master file for products and all categories for products and intellectual materials on record in the patent office and available through manufacturers listed on the internet.
8. At the post deadline filings individuals will have their locker numbers called a PTO employee will recover their file and deliver it to the filers and the initial examiners. Filers will receive stamp received photo copies of all materials returned to them. Copies will be recorded into internet data bases of applications after all patents are received.
9. In order to eliminate low quality patents the office will charge a post deadline filing fee due to the expenses of the auction and to create revenues and reduce the number of low quality patents being filed. ($200.00 patent fee in addition to the normal fees).

Inventorship Accuracy Improved Filing Systems


1. First to Invent 60 Day Notice of Filing System
   
   Under this system, inventors entrust the integrity of the USPTO as far as not divulging their inventions. In the event that the inventor feels that this trust has been betrayed and that security information leakage has caused disputed claims to form, the inventor could cancel the use of this method and go to the 60 day notice of intention to file system. In the event that this system is determined to still be corrupt, the inventor could choose my original proposal of open public forum post deadline lockering by category. All of these methods will require the security of the master inventor in order for the system to function as a corruption free patent system.
   
   
2. First to Invent 60 Day Notice of Intention to File System
   
   By giving sixty days advance notice of intention to file, this will eliminate the right of any individual claiming the invention is stolen to file any further claim to the intellectual material rights. It will be considered that if you do not know what the invention is, you could not be the inventor of it. All companies with projects under research and development will be required to keep their original intellectual materials and any progress updates to those original materials in secure lockers as the USPTO. Individuals submitting original intellectual materials in a particular category would file after the deadline has passed and if any of the intellectual material being filed matches the intellectual materials on file, then the person having the materials on file would be considered the inventor and the other application would be rejected. In the event that companies or individuals are reluctant to entrust their intellectual materials to the USPTO, high security measures may be enacted to ensure secrecy of the files. Only in the event of the application on file matching the application being filed would it be necessary to show the portion of the application matching the filer's application to the filer to prove to the filer that intellectual material is already in existence.
   
   

1. Parent Patents
   
   This new form of patent would allow inventors to record their original intellectual materials without the stringent requirements of the perfection of the conception. This would allow the recording of intellectual materials held within the secrecy of one's own mind without the perfection of the invention or a totally complete description of it and without full research and development. The basis of the patent would be granted on the concept of the production of intellectual materials without which, the finished product would not exist. This patent recognizes the person with the original idea as the original inventor and should have reasonable compensation for the creation, 15% of all profits after all expenses or 50% of the patent sales price at auction. Other persons who complete the perfection of the patent should have the right to a 66/33% partnership with the conceiver or an additional 15% of all profits after expenses, or 50% of the ultimate auction price. This patent concept would eliminate other persons from attempting to steal through the use patent tickets to defeat the original patent. These persons would become partners of the original inventor under this proposal because it would allow each ticket inventor to become a business partner with the original conceiver in order to continue the advancement of the product. This would produce a top quality product for the consumer. The problem with the present system is that the patent developers want to wait the full 1 year under provisional patents in order to obtain the use of the intellectual materials for free, when and if the original inventor is able to perfect the patent under the present system. In a world of specialization, we need to keep our idea producers producing original ideas and our developers developing them in cooperative partnerships instead of adversarial disputes.
   
   
2. Human Advancement Patents
   
   This type of patent recognizes the efforts of the inventor and guarantees fair compensation through the establishment of percentages of profits (15% plus) associated with subject matter listed in these patents. The inventor will also establish a method of compensating themselves along with the intellectual materials contained in the patent. This allow the patenting of previous un-patentable materials based on their worth or benefits to society.
   
   
3. Legislation Patents
   
   By establishing a financial reward for the perfection of the design of the legislation, these patents will stimulate the creation of a more perfect society by establishing a financial reward for the perfection of the design of the legislation, thereby; finding the smartest individual capable of legislation design and properly rewarding the person for the top plan. These legislation patents will stimulate our top inventors with the ability to formulate global infrastructure design to eliminate all human problems and receive fair compensations of 15% of the benefits for their creations and the method of obtaining payment.
   
   
4. Green Solutions Patent
   
   
5. Experiment Creation Patents
   
   Under this provision, a patent could be awarded for the conception of an experiment that leads to a result that causes the creation of additional inventions and the experiment would be the parent for everything this is created as sub-invention of the original, A minimum of 15% of profits from the entire group of patents created would be awarded to the conceiver. This can extend to the creation of the recognition of a problem if the experiment produces a method of solving the problem.
   
   
6. Idea Patentability Improvements
   
   The new provision will provide the proper incentives to maximize valuable intellectual property conceptions. The new statute will basically allow the granting of a patent based on its benefit to the society, the economy, the environment, and the reduction of negative influences, or the creation of new positive influences and the elimination of patent rejections due to obviousness and being tied to a particular machine.
   
   

1. Patent Inventorship Lockering Determination Method (Valuable Patent Extra Charge)
   
   This method eliminates the ability for all persons to claim the theft of intellectual material after the expiration of the 60 day notice intention to file or 60 day notice of filing. This option will establish a time and date to allow all parties who claim inventorship of an invention to file their patents simultaneously in conjunction with guarded files at USPTO containing R&D materials in secure lockers in order to determine who was the first to invent the parent invention or the completed invention.
   
   Please Note: These new patents and determination methods are necessary in order to eliminate the contested inventorship issues on most valuable patents, thereby; reducing wrongful awarding, initially, of the patents and subsequent later disputes after issuance causing reissuance. This new plan will help to promote inventor's cooperation on invention projects and provide the incentives necessary to stimulate man's progress through the 21st Century. In our present patent system, "The race to the patent office," this method results in the most valuable patents being placed in the wrong name. This plan will recognize the greatness of our true inventors and discourage those trying to gain compensation through illegal methods.
   
   The proposed legislation is a work in progress. It may be subject retraction modifications on a daily or weekly basis. Please continue checking to view the latest inovative concepts.
   
   
2. First to Speak Legislation
   
   Under this form of patenting, an applicant appears before a federal judge and verbally discloses the invention to the courts while being recorded. An instant check of the worldwide patent database for existing and pending patents is made and a worldwide check of the internet for existence of the written idea in any location that it would normally be found. Notice of the hearing is given 60 days in advance so that all interested parties can have the opportunity to present their inventions on the same topic of invention. The filing inventor must have their invention in written form to be turned in to the judge at the beginning of the hearing. The hearing requester then submits their written application and testifies verbally and if no other similar patentable products are found, the patent is awarded to the filer. This eliminates the potential of verbal divulgements, ease dropping, and transmission interceptions and awards the patent to the correct conceiver immediately and allows for the sale to occur immediately thereafter. Spending the money should be restricted to profit making endeavors that are approved by the buyer and seller in order to solidify the guarantee that is offered by the seller regarding marketability of the product inventions sold.

1. Patent Infringement plus Inequitable Intellectual Property Theft
   
   Anytime within the first two months of the earliest file date that a patent dispute errupts regarding intellectual property creation, then any businesses started as a result of the intellectual material creation, will pay 15% minium of their profits into a court supervised fund until such a time that a determination is made as to who was the intellectual property conceiver.
   
   
2. Patent Infringement
   
   Anytime a dispute is filed, 15% of the profits derived from the use of the intellectual property will be placed in a court superised account and assessments may run up to 200% of the profits if definite intentional infringement is proven.
   
   
3. Anti-Conspiracy and Refuse to Deal Provision “At Odds Special Judicial Order Request”
   
   We request that either now in the future, a special order be entered due to the fact that manufacturing companies producing all of the products and services in the world are essentially at odds with this inventor due to patent conception disputes and therefore in order to continue human advancement it may be necessary to order financial partnership status, and the patent be assigned to a company capable of producing it with an order of compensation attached in the amount of 15 to 50% after all expenses profits depending on what the judiciary feels is the correct compensation under the circumstances. This order is deemed necessary in order to stop companies from refusing to deal in order to conspire to obtain a patent for little or nothing due to the fact that they have no need of additional monetary compensation profits from new products as they are extremely wealthy presently and this inventor has no financial backing and no previous art technical experience in the field although creating all of the major breakthroughs in all of the fields involved and receiving no compensation for them. Companies refusing to abide by these terms should be closed down and their patentable items reassigned to inventor cooperative companies. Also, these new items should be considered separately with regards to ownership from any previously disputed items.
   
   
4. Willful Enfringement
   1. Triple damage awards will equal 3 times the profit received but will not be available to claimants unless registered mail has been sent notifying the parties of the enfringement and the intension to file an action against them seeking triple damages and the parties are given a reasonable amount of time to correct the disputed situation (90 days).
   2. For the time period of the enfringement the injured party should be able to collect damages for market flooding based on a formula of 100% percent of the actual profit that was received.
   3. This provision will establish a major or minor enfringement categories a major enfringement would constitute a enfringement of an entire product while a minor enfringement would constitute a violation involving part of a product or part of a process.
      
      Note:Your prompt attention to this matter will help the passage of the bill and ensure continued prosparity for America. If you have any questions Please feel free to call me at 1(239)731-9860. Thank you for your attention in this important matter!
   
   
   Return to Top
   
   Economic Crimes
   
   Present legislation does nothing to correct the injustices of the patent system regarding the following methods of stealing inventions.
   
   1. Invention thefts by employers (Gestapo Tactic Sign-Offs by use of Inventor Duress). Murder, threat of murder, and organized inventor intimidation groups comprised of thefting inventors.
   2. Thefts by accidental divulgement and intentional divulgement resulting in the conversation participant filing a patent and claiming to be the inventor agreement
   3. Partial Theft by Co-Inventor Claims
   4. Internal PTO Corruption by Patent Board Conspirators
   5. Examiner wrongful determinations and possible payoffs of kickbacks.
   6. Pre-Dating to claim Inventorship.
   7. Alleging Stolen Inventions
   8. Alleging Previous Existence of the Invention in order to use it for Free
   9. Creating Congressional Legislation to enforce Gestapo Sign-offs
   10. Refusal to deal coupled with inventor's inability to reduce Invention to Marketability or insufficient knowledge of previous art in time to retain ownership intellectual materials lost to original inventor after 1 year staute. The established companie's knowledge that without full previous art knowledge including trade secrets the invention will lbecome the property fo the company by default by simply waiting and refusing to deal. (Insufficient informaton to inventor regarding how to bring the invention to marketable stage himself.)
   11. Wire Tapping
   12. Intimidation by Fraud Accusation
       
       
   13. Attempting to have Patents re-issued that were Already Issued
   14. Allegations of Intellectual Material Theft via Website Hacking
   15. Allegations of Intellectual Materials Theft during Telephone conversations or In-Person Conversation
   16. Amnesia regarding what the invention is after the original Inventor files patent. In this fraud scenario individuals alledged to have had conversations regarding the invention in order to claim theft after the inventor files the patent. Physciatrist are evidently conspiring to assist in this fraud scenario by testifying to the validity of amnesia claims.
   17. Alleging Thefts by Claiming Previous R&D Development
   18. Inventor Estate Theft
   19. Extortion and Threaten Physical Harm
   20. Murder and Physical Assaults against Inventors
   21. Allegations of Gift Inventions
   22. Exclusion from Right to File due to Royal Heritages or Religious Convictions
   23. Allegation of Open invention idea status by divulgement under duress.
   24. Filing the patent first grants legal superiority to the claim. Contesting a claim takes a lengthy court battle which results in a judges refusal to issue a patent to either party.
   25. Denial of Inventor ship under the Age of 18
   26. No Recognition of the concept of "Master Inventor," "World's Only Inventor," therefore; anyone is able to file a patent. No concept of "Royal Chain of Inventors" dating back to 2,500 years ago. No concept of proving inventor ship through the use of "Invention Cluster" method of evidence.
   27. Under age persons cannot file or use the system.
   28. Ease Droppig, electronically assisted and non-assisted.
   29. Internet usage observations and type-ins.
   30. Hold-ups using lethal weapons or alledged possesion of lethal weapon and the intimidation created by these occasional incidents.
   31. Denial of necessary usage of services or employment (threat of termination or financial ruin).
   32. Stolen invention legal attorney drafted sales. Ultra low bid suspicious cash sale transactions (UNreasonably low percentage of total lifetime profits after all expenses plus suspicious cash sales and investors who do not care wether it is stolen or not as long as it is cheap and thry don't have to pay twice.
   33. Sandmanning invetions by multiple profitering sales of the stolen Invetiions.
   34. Verbal promises of business partnerships broken.
   35. Inventor cheated due to non-notification of thefters filing and non-notification of publication that the invention was filed for or granted even after the 18 month secrecy period.
   36. Intimidation of inventor by restricting methods of evidencing. Under this scenario, the fraud conspirators attempt to by attempting to destroy the right to recover monetary compensation in lawsuits by hinging the entire case on one mistaken piece of information instead of basing the defense on the entire collection of marketable inventions since 1953 (Resonable percentage of correctness 80% plus and impossible odds of invention clusters not being formed by one person).
   37. Use of inter-company back dated memos and back dated inventor notebooks to claim previous invention dates.
   38. Filing patents, claiming inventorship when the actual invention was posted on the internet and then the persons filed on it.
   39. U.S. Government Sponsored Idea Creation Incentives – This creative fund would sponsor top inventors by paying for filing fees, office cost, and cash rewards, as an incentive for producing the nation’s top inventions. These awarded yearly based on PTO’s voted top inventions in each category along with the awards recognition plaques.
   40. Correct Usage of Congress Diverted PTO Profits to Top Inventors PTO Sponsored Patent Development Funding and Winners Patent Firm Filing Fees and Office Cost Funding
   
   
   Return to Top
   
   USPTO Rule Changes
   
   
   1. Application Quality and Volume Problems
      
      The best way to deal with the issue of patent quality is to establish an initial reception determination as to grading the patents being good, fair, or poor, allowing those patents found to be in poor status to be granted a patent only when found within 20 years, to be a marketable product or an idea in use. In addition to patent determinations, the inventor could order, at extra cost, an immediate search of the idea for the availability of the product on the internet at the time of filing as a method of evidencing “First to Invent”. Also a world database internet check will be done at the time of filing to determine the originality of the idea. These checks will be paid for by the applicant at the time of filing in order ensure the "First to Invent" status. These improvements will help to eliminate many inventorship disputes that end up in court resulting in fraudulent improper judgments
      
      
   2. First to Invent Unquestionably Legible Hand Written
      
      This will allow the filing of hand written flat bedded provisional intellectual property registry filings. The only thing needing to be type written is the name and address of the inventor. This will eliminate the concept of ease dropping during the preparation of documents and establish original inventorship and also this will turn a provisional filing into an intellectual property registry to be built on with subsequent filings over a period of 1 year in order to perfect the invention into a non-provisional filing status.
      
      
   3. Security of the Internet, Patent Office File Content Secrecy, and Leak Prevention Improvements
      
      This provision would seal the files that are in provisional status except to a small trusted top PTO executive group and the U.S. President.
      
      
   4. Valuable Patents Immediate Determination Method
      
      Payment of additional fees for immediate check of master lists of updated inventions and immediate internet searches for the existence of intellectual materials in order to make a determination of the award ability of a parent patent immediately. This method requires the payment of additional fees for immediate check after the expiration of the deadline to file under 60 day notice of intention to file patenting methods listed above.
   5. Public Auctioning Non-Practicing Entities
      
      An inventor who does not develop their own invention within 5 years of filing a provisional patent will be required to make available for public auction on a once a year basis, minimum, the conception rights to the invention and once yearly thereafter at a reduced minimum bid percentage rate according to tables (different section). 50% of the patents will become employee or SBA financed owned and 50% of the patents will become singly owned.
   
   
   Return to Top
   
   Global Patenting Harmonizing and Cooperation Agreement

   Under this plan, worldwide internet connections will improve inventorship determination by detecting "First to Post" inventorship evidencing method coupled with master invention list. The claiming of previous existence of inventions in order to defraud the inventor will not be permitted. Inventor notebooks will be considered fraud conspiracies. Photographic and publications alleged but not commonly produced will be considered fraudulent. The main method of evidencing will be to produce the invention after the deadline passes from the secrecy of your own mind and then immediately performing a world wide check of already listed patents.

   Our present global patenting system needs to be improved and consolidated into one organization focusing on inventorship accuracy, inventor rights to obtain a patent, and improved enforcement of infringement and licensing requirements for technology usage. We need to establish far tables to allow the usage of patented materials when the usage is not in direct competition with the original inventor's original product concept. Establishing police type enforcement of patent laws will eliminate all infringements and ensure inventor collection of monies proceed without inventor intimidation. There will no longer be a need to go to court because these statutes will be immediately enforceable by PTO personnel through plant closings after reasonable notifications of infringements and non-payments to PTO of inventor patent and licensing obligations. This program will promote global harmony and unity just as the interstate highways vastly improved interstate commerce and national unity.

   Return to Top
   
   USPTO Integrity Improvements 2009
   
   
   1. The Change to "First to File" as the Primary Evidencing Method of First to Invent. Immediate Conception Determination Awarding. Evidencing immediately by checks of master list of invention for novelty determination, then awarding 15% minimum statutory percentage of profits after all expenses for 20 years, second evidencing method, at 3 to 6 months after filing, bereavement hearings for inventorship determination, this determination method uses provisional patent intellectual property domination by the ability to add related patentable intellectual materials to the original to complete conception or to complete the conception of additional related or unrelated inventions to show overwhelming evidence of conception ability, third method is historical related invention clusters using proximity locations knowledge of original claimed inventors involvement in various types of related invention clusters including cities, addresses, walking distances, friends, relatives, classmates, dates, and employment locations, etc., fourth method, the ability to have no cross filers within the original 90 day period (non-espionaged invention), fifth method, multiple conceiver allegations, the more individuals who claim to be inventors or co-inventors, the less probable the legitimacy of the claim (large packs of conspirators), this exclusion will not apply to research and development after inventorship determination.
   2. The change to provisional filing as a conception document with additions and updating like an inventor's notebook. Becoming an improved evidencing PTO document through 1 Year, Evidence of the Ability to Advance the Original Concept into a Stage where a person having skills in the area could construct the invention without undue research and development.
   3. 90 Day Secrecy Period as the evidence of non-espionage, filers in this period may be determined to have equal rights due to espionage derivation. Improvements in patent office security might work if honest employees and non-financially involved volunteers can be located or files can be sealed against viewing, otherwise one of the other evidencing methods may be necessary, such as "First to File" immediate issue after deadline for the category of the invention passes.
   4. Extended Non-Publishing to 10 Years to protect inventions against non-participant bandit countries. With the reduction or elimination of these bandit countries, this publishing could be reduced to the present 18 month status or the date of release to public for sale of the product.
   5. 3 to 6 Month after Initial Filing Derivations Hearing before New Patent Issuances: This provision would strengthen patent values by hearing derivation proceeding before proceeding with patent issuance. This would in no way impact the 1 year conception provisional patent period. It would apply to non-provisional patent filings only. Notices will be mailed to individuals who have patents that are cross filed during the 90 day secrecy period.
   6. Non-Provisional Patent Filings at 1 Year completion of intellectual domination period of claiming and sub-invention claiming absolute right also secrecy improvement. Non-provisional patents may include as many inventions as the inventor conceived pertaining to the original invention. Intellectual property rights of filing can be sold or partnershiped from these provisional patents in partnerships to obtain non-provisional patents. No monies may be paid until the actual issuance of a patent.
   7. Mater List of Previous Inventions, Plus Daily Updates must contain all invention previous or present production responsibility of companies involved in production to report to USPTO with photographs with correct classification, Also, improvements of existing classification PTO cross-reference of the abstract and title reassignment to correct classification, Also, refinement of classification titles and sub-titles. Any inventions presented that are not on this list will be considered new and issuable patent subject matter. Sources of information should include full internet search of products available. Full national or world wide database inclusion of unique patented items will included in the original list and updated. Major publications can be used when the difference can be determined between genuine and counterfeit issues. Historical books, catalogs, magazines, and newspapers, all of these items must be presented before the first original master previous invention list is compiled.
   8. International Patent System Member Country Union and Non-Member Exclusions including Trade Embargos and Sanctions for Intellectual Property Theftting in All Countries, Participant Improved Compliance Inspection Policies of Non-Infringement and Illegal Manufacturing Startups
   9. Refusal to Deal (Independent Inventor Lock Out Bar), Refusal to Partnership on Percentage of Profit Basis, and Refusal to Purchase Bar and Price Arbitration, Refusal to Deal declared Illegal. Contractor purchases only declared illegal and a potential conspiracy to defraud the inventor.
   10. Conspiracy to Control Auction Prices: This activity will be punishable by the same laws controlling county land auctions.
   11. Select Top Projects Public Funding for Development Available, This provision ensures that top projects will become available to the public by guaranteeing public funded loans for development and business startup
   12. Anti-Thicket Patenting and Patenting Around Legislation, This provision will define invention improvement restricting patent filing and revoke existing patents and prevent new patents from being issued in situations where it would prevent product improvement or competing products competition
   13. R&D Non-Starting until Filing of Original Conception Document: This provision ensures that no one will have a product under development without first filing a conception document establishing exactly what the development is to encompass, thereby eliminating the argument of stolen intellectual property and the use of R&D to steal an inventor's intellectual property.
   14. Non-Divulgement Requirement Absolute Novelty: No invention may be divulged to anyone previous to provisional patent filing.
   15. Value of invention percentage of profit, licensing, cash sale, improvements and features, as determined by consumer test marketing or actual price improvement sales proportion, damages, triple damages, after notification and refusal to deal.
   16. Auctioning requirement after 5 years if no production startup company has begun, sale, or no licensing, required auctioning becomes mandatory at 33% of profits after all expenses minimum bid in the 6th year reducing equal increments to 2% at 19th year, inventor grouping rights to boost bid prices retained. This provision will not be implemented when legislation is needed to create demand or economic recession or other factors contained in the provision are claimed.
   17. Inequitable Conduct (Theft of Intellectual Properties, Civil Rights Violations, Conspiracies, Duress of the Inventor, Patent Re-Issuances Cluster Proofs Wrong Inventor, Fraud, Proximity Location Evidencing, Master Inventor Clusters)
   18. Inventor's Oath: Inventors will swear to the best of their knowledge that they were the original conceivers of the inventor without which the item would not exist. There's no penalty when items are discovered in existence due to the huge volume of items on the market. The oath can be removed at any time the inventor discovers previous art existence.
   19. Inventions Classification Improvements: New classifications will be accepted for anything that is valuable and therefore in need of protection.
   20. Applicant Quality Submissions: During times of high patent volume or the inability to find sufficient PTO personnel to handle application volume, the PTO may elect to grade non-provisional patents based on a 3 stage grading system, good, fair, and poor, as a method of alerting applicants as to the non-marketability of their application subject matter to reduce patent flow volume to a manageable level.
   21. USPTO Security Funding: This provision will financed through establishment of fees based on company profits from patented products up to 4%. Security will be assigned in the event of inventorship disputes and inventorship frauds.
   22. Secrecy of the Files Violation may be declared after an individual's third invention has been leaked in the 90 day period following the filing by the PTO or independents ease dropping from claim jumpers. This allows hand written and drawn materials to be presented to the PTO in person. This situation will invoke two other methods of consideration for patent granting including filed group cluster consideration. This will allow the fact that a filed group of patents is on file by the patentee in question to be considered as an evidencing method of inventorship. Another evidencing method that should be invoked is the right of a patentee to file multi-invention blank patents and not reveal the contents except in exchange for a patent granting. Release of the patentable conception through news media or introduction of the patentable item in question is barred and considered in a fraud attempt, especially in the 90 day secrecy period. The judge may set a deadline for counter filing in identical categories to the group of patents that have been requested for special patent granting due to security leaks (90 Days Notice of Intention to File will notify any allegedly deprived individuals of the potential granting date in order to counter file).
   23. Obviousness or non-obviousness invention will be changed to marketable or unmarketable invention as a method of determining patentability with the assumption being that if the invention has not been invented in 2,000 years then it was essentially non-obvious, since it has proven its value by being marketable.
   24. Delayed Patent Issuance. Patents may be delayed in issuance up to 20 years in the event that a market for the product has not been developed due to economic conditions or lack of legislation to direct force the invention on to the market or the instance that the economic conditions are not in place due to a poor economy or supply in demand of commodities
   25. Patent Pending Startup Banned until Final Patent Issuance, at 6 Months Post Non-Provisional Filing Uncontested or Contested "Make Special" Applications, at 18 Months with Provisional Filing "Make Special".
   26. Assumed Duress of the Inventor (Anti-Gestapo Act): No individual many approach an inventor and use intimidation and threats of violence or murder as a method of extracting intellectual materials for the purpose of theft. No individual may ask another individual for intellectual materials that they do not expect to pay for in person. 10 day cooling off period. Any individual alleging to have obtained intellectual materials for free on a voluntary basis must submit a signed neutral party sign-off with psychiatrist examination and counter offer of minimum 20 man security force as an alternative to signing. No employer may use the divulgement of intellectual material as a basis of hiring employees or as a condition for continued employment.
   27. The Right of the Conceiver to Control Development and Receive a Percentage of Profits, 15% Minimum Profits and the Owner of the Intellectual Property for 20 Years, Except in the instance where the conception is incomplete as to being marketable. In this situation, intellectual property rights can be lost in 5 years and will only apply to the percentage of the total intellectual property necessary to create one or more marketable products. This percentage may also be reduced in the event that the conceived invention is a combination of previous inventions.
   28. Inventors Sole and Co-Developers: This provision establishes that only one person is the inventor and that all others are developers or researchers.
   29. Internet Usage of Company's Present Websites to show non-existence and non-availability of new products.
   30. New Categories of Invention: Experiment Creation 15% of Eventual Commerce or Human Advancement Benefit, Business Method 15%, Retroactive Compensation for Previously Created Experiments
   31. Product Improvement Free Market Value and Usage Determination Experiments
   32. Marketing Denial Conspiracies (Store Shelf Space Unavailable for New Products) Entertainment Intellectual Property Contractual Exclusion (Corporation New Inventor Black Balling and Refusal to Partnership)
   33. 218 Year Derivation Hearings to re-instate any wrongfully issued patent. This provision would allow individuals who were wrongfully denied patents to prove the wrongful denial through invention cluster determination methods to proved master inventorship. This will lead to the granting of a new patent as a compensation for the previous wrongful issuance.
   34. Telephone Divulgement: No individual may transfer by voluntary telephone conversations or in person meetings anything that they know is an intellectual property except by accident in which case they must file a provisional patent within 90 days and also indicate the details of the conversation in as much as is known.
   35. Think Tank Exclusion: All think tank conversions must be recorded by each individual participant in order to actively determine who invented and who assisted.
   36. Provisional Patent Additions
   37. Non-Funding Conspiracies (No Startup Capital): In the event that it is determined that a non-funding conspiracy exists, through civil rights violations.
   38. Damages: Inventors will notify the USPTO or the USPTO will investigate independently cases of infringement and notify violators of their options to stop manufacturing immediately, 90 days, or deposit moneys into court sponsored PTO accounts equal to the amount owed plus interest at 15%. Final determinations of infringement or non-infringement must be made in a prompt manner not to exceed 1 year from the original complaint.
   39. Notification of Provisional Patent Application Infringement: Applicants will notify the USPTO regarding disputed infringement during this 1 year time period. Companies will be notified by PTO of potential infringement damages. In these situations, same provisions will apply as in section 38 except that the period of time between the receiving of a complaint by the patentee or will create a liability for the period of time of the provisional patent, up to 1 year, in addition a determinations must be rendered within 1 year of the filing of a non-provisional application related to the infringement.
   40. Reasonable damages for infringement will be determined by the contribution of the overall invention in relationship to its importance or contribution to the overall product. Infringement suits will not be filed without a reasonable attempt by the patentee to obtain compensation.
   41. The usage of a new invention when it is a part of other inventions will not be denied in fields not in direct competition with the licensee or the owner of the patent. Usage in these fields must be purchased through licensing or sales.
   42. Intellectual Property Absolute Rights: All intellectual property from the time it’s spoken, is the property of the individual who spoke the original words and no other individual may file for a patent claiming to be the inventor (Inequitable Conduct and Subject to Fines up to $1,000,000 or Fraud Charges).
   
   
   Patent Reissuance (Licensing Only)

   2% to 4% compensation for established companies that might be bankrupted by higher percentage rates in instance of wrongfully awarded patents. These patents should be used in situations where monies are unrecoverable from the original core profit owners of the companies.

   Return to Top
   
   Master Inventor Theory Evidencing Methods
   
   

   Establishment of concept of the master inventor while many persons are unable to or unwilling to except the concept of the existence of a master inventor, the evidence I believe will show that no other conclusion is possible.

   1. A determination of whether a master inventor status is sufficiently factual to be true beyond a reasonable doubt and /or true beyond any reasonable doubt equaling beyond the odds of DNA types statistical. By a study through the appointment of a committee of congress and in conjunction with the patent office these individuals should be 45 to 75 years old to have sufficient clear memory and to have a background of involving concerns for the accuracy of inventing history they should be chosen for living there lives in the 5 major US cities where the majority of inventions occurred one being Port Huron, Michigan home to all 4 of the US master inventors, Detroit, Michigan, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Naples, Florida and Fort Myers, Florida, these Florida cities where home to only Michael R. Thomas, these candidates should be known in the community as being high in integrity and IQ to study theory of previous master inventors and their ancestry. A study of previous US high federals and suspected master inventors Michael R. Thomas, legal name before infant adoption, (Michael)(Roberts)(Welsh).Delbert Roberts, Isiah Roberts, George Roberts, Kings of England, George first through third, Also the line of King Arthurs, back to the Apostle Paul then back to Shocratias and the Theologens.
   2. King Bee theory of master inventorship through Mother Nature and /or god. This theory would project that one person is different in the human world just as the King Bee is unique in the social insect world.
   3. Determination of master inventor status by genetic code theory. This theory would establish a master inventor status by the concept that within ancient royal families high breeding occurred in each country in order to produced top genetic codes capable of invention leadership development of weapons and plans for winning battles and the advancement of arts and sciences, the advancements of law improvements in food production variety methods and shelter from the elements. The theory would indicate that the cross country interbreeding of these royal families would produce the most genetically advanced individual on the planet.
   4. Study of royal heritage of the perspective master inventor. My qualifications genetically would include the following, (A)Father, King James of Poland 15th Century, King of Northern Spain 7th Century, families of writers of the Bible, (B)Mother, Queen of France, Durance/Robert’s family, 17 King Louis’s dating back to Mary Magdalin and Apostle Paul,(C) King of Prussia, Czar Nicholas/Robert’s family, leaders of Prussia also straight line relatives to Emperor of China Jungas Kahn,(D)Queen of Netherlands, The Ogleby/Robert’s family, (E)King of United Kingdom, Roberts/Edison family, (F)Queen of Germany, Queen Charlotte, King Etta of Germany’s daughter.
   5. A study of invention clusters pertaining to the master inventor and persons who he was in contact with previous to their filing of patent applications. And determined by major city clusters, work related clusters, business related clusters, school related clusters, vacation clusters, family related clusters, second cousin and non-related parents by adoption and radius clusters concerning distances from residences of the potential master inventor. The study of these invention clusters should be carried out by concerned committee members by discussions with individuals appearing on original patent applications. Also individuals who knew original patenters, their place of employment, the fact that they were original patenters, any circumstances surrounding the original time and place of the invention and as many individuals as possible that can be located.
   6. The successful candidate should have the ability to reduce to close to zero the number of high quality non-chemical pharmaceutical-soft ware patents and discoveries entering the patent office. Also by refusing to devulge ideas to perspective business partners and intimidators by not filing patents due to the small likely hood of being awarded the patents.
   7. The successful candidate’s ability to restore the patent offices supply of high quality patent applications on a certain date after legislation has been past for establishing filing deadlines for individuals claiming that ideas have been stolen, except they cannot remember what it was, or they have supposedly been working on the project for years in their research and development departments or their home garages, etc. Filing deadline auctions and individuals through ancient allege inventions.
   8. The only individual on the planet capable in producing an invention on challenge. Also except for my Grandfather and other Grandfathers the only person ever to be able to produce major invention as a small infant (1 month approximately).
   9. Ability to produce the world’s top inventions as well as the simplest of inventions, the smallest of inventions, the largest of inventions and previous unknown fields of invention.
   10. Dependably produce filing deadline, after filing deadline high quality patents and intellectual materials to such an extent that it becomes obvious that this person is the world’s actual only inventor of the world’s significance not including chemical pharmaceutical patents, all though the parent technologies were created by myself and families.
   11. The observation that as a group of inventors, the individuals who are registered as the patent inventors, and also individuals who were originally unsuccessful applicants at obtaining a patent. These individuals are presently and in the past are unable to produce a single invention except for the time they were in contact with master inventor candidate Michael R. Thomas. There are instances in the past where inventors have taken more than one invention or obtain them through other means in order to produce the appearance of a major inventor.
   
   
   Return to Top