|
|
|
|
KudoAdBar
Google
KudoAds
AMAZON
BUY
- DVDs
|
|
|
(Continued)
-Charles
H. Portz
When
does a great THOUGHT become a patentable invention?
Should a Patent be tangible or a
formula?
That was a question easier
to answer when Thomas Edison came up with the
lightbulb and Nathan B. Stubblefield handed the
world the mobile Wireless
Telephone®©. Those two hard-end
products clearly fit with old ideas of what it
meant to invent something physical under the USPTO
laws between the years of 1878, and 1905. In those
years copyrights, trademarks came first, then
patents. When once Registered, they were filed with
the international bureau in Berne Switzerland.
Q. Can pharmaceutical formulas, and software
media productions meet today's U.S. Supreme Court
requirements that patents may be given only for new
and/and or improved mechanical
innovations?
Before
the EFFECTS of a formula patent tied into somebody
elses patented stethoscope or computor, came along
to be granted patent, the "new, useful and not
obvious idea, came into being." Now it's going back
to the old days stating that a patent must be tied
to a particular machine or apparatus, or must
transform a particular article into a different
state or thing," says Charles Portz.
Some
patents seekers are say that patent rule'ss are all
outdated, i.e. like the two men who devised some
software that predicts moves in commodities by
weather man reports. They want the Supreme Court to
rewrite a requirement that patents may be given
only for mechanical innovations, writes LA Times,
about the Bilski vs USA, (February 24, 2009).
At
least four subsequent patent denials based on the
Bilski precedent led attorney Michael Jakes, acting
on behalf of Bilski, Warsaw and other inventors, to
petition the high court, which hasn't updated its
definition of what can be patented for 28
years.
"There
are companies out there that have been getting
process patents and right now they don't know if
that has value anymore," Jakes said.
Neither
the patent appeals board nor the federal court
ruled that business methods can't be patented, but
patent attorneys fear that will be the end result
as few would pass the revised test.
"This
is one of those rare times in over 200 years of the
U.S. patent system that the courts have taken a
very constricted view of what is patentable," said
Wayne Sobon, founder of the NewEconomyPatents.org
website and director of intellectual property for
Accenture, a global management consulting,
technology services and outsourcing firm. "A lot of
observers, including our company, view that as an
undermining of the incentive the patent system was
created to provide."
Part
02h
Q. Should either the pharmaceutical
formula and/or software media productions be
granted Copyright and Trademarks first, then a
patent? See
Above - the Edison - Stubblefield, examples?
Land-line electricity and wireless
WiTEL®© electricity became the light
bulb and
iPhone.
A.
Yes. Today's U.S. Supreme Court requirements
that patents may be given only for mechanical
innovations, that have been registered and allowed
Copyright and Trademarks first, should be the rules
of law.
The
biggest problem with the Bilski decision, said
Stanford University law professor Mark A. Lemley,
is that it has thrown into question all innovations
that involve more mental than physical activity,
not just those on business methods. "That could
jeopardize the effects and elements of existing
patents on medicines, procedures and scientific
software data evaluations, as well as future
service marks devised from patents," says
Portz.
WiTELglobal.com
- Gobal WTQCA Auction sales for the licensing of
the NBS WiTEL®©
servicemarks
The
"NBS
WiTEL®©" Business Model NBS
WiTEL®©
NBS
WiTEL DEMANDS For Payment from TelCos for Copyright
infringment
The Wireless Telephone®©
Organization, like AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and
Sprint, all have business models. The Wireless
Telephone®© still touts the one
established in 1902," by inventor, Nathan B.
Stubblefield, its founder.
Before Troy Cory-Stubblefield took over the
Wireless Telephone® business over 35
years ago, the Wireless Telephone®©
was referred to as radio, computers were things
delivered by forklift, and the analog effects of
WiTEL, WiFi187 radio and TV broadcasts were free to
listen to and watch.
What makes the NBS Wireless
Telephone®© very unique today is
that Troy, the biological grandson of the founder,
still maintains the company. It was his Grandpa
Nat, who not only first invented the term "Wireless
Telephone," -- but he registered and published the
copyright, and servicemark ®© in
1907, one year before being granted patent - 1908.
(See
USPTO drawing) Click from More about - Grandpa
Nat,
Troy ofttimes uses "NBS WiTEL®©" to
fully describe both the effects of WiTEL, WiFi and
WiMAX 187, and the hand held WiTEL mobile unit
itself.
Whenever he discusses the ways to facilitate the
methods for his company to collect WiTEL's
copyright royalties from the four TeleCos, he
advises all interested parties to focus on the
www.patent887.com
drawings.
"As they say . . .," says Troy --
"a
picture is worth a thousand
words.
The WiMAX WiFi187 towers, the vehicle, and
the copper wire connections, . . . are all IDd with
numbers to pinpoint the WiTEL sender, and receiving
mobile vehicle. The only thing missing is the
satellite, with a Fig #."
For the Four Major Telco firms to settle the monies
now all due and payable to NBS
WiTEL®©, for the use of WiTEL phone
number assets, "it could be done fairly easy,"
says
Gary Gysel of Pacific
Sunrise. The royalty
payment could be as simple as changing the name
from NBS
Wireless Telephone®© to Verizon
WiTEL®© '
VoIP," or "it could
take as long as it took Mattel to settle their
copyright infringement action in the
Barbie
Doll vs Bratz Doll
case."
CLICK
FOR MORE VERIZON VOIP
STORY.
"It is almost like a flying arrow just shot from
the bow of Cupid. No one wants to catch it before
they know what the ring will cost them. Will it be
a FREEBE, or will their be a $$ charge? In our NBS
Copyright infringement claims, we . . . as well as
our targets know who they are, and we have only two
choices.
Do you extend the time before the $Billion Dollar
Invoice hits the WiTEL user, AT&T, Verizon,
T-Mobile, and Sprint? Or do you design "WTQCA-09?"
I think it's only logical to settle the
WiTEL®© infringements with our
"share
the program" we have laid out within the defines of
WTQCA-09. CLICK FOR MORE
STORY
The WiTEL Quality Control Authority is the NBS
watch dog eyeballing the Who's Who in the creation
of phone numbers, and for the analog to digital
seizure for coupons exchange, that will take place
in February - 2009. The organization needs to be
turned into a $Billion asset, controlled by a
non-profit organization, like ICANN
- (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers) / - http://www.icann.org/
WTQCA-09
Troy says, "what we have done since our first
contact with the FCC in 2006, is stay calm. This
has been our NBS WiTEL®© greatest
contribution -- not being impulsive, no law suits,
not changing the rules willy-nilly, but going
through a very professional and orderly process
that takes into account unintended
consequences.
That's our moon-shot: not to find another model but
to save the one we've got . . . the one based on
the asset legacy of NBS WiTEL®© -
1902, in exchange for theirs.
Part
03h
Lawsuits.
Q. "What does it mean to be tied to a machine?"
A. Again, take the
Edison and Nathan Stubblefield, example, they both
took the effects and elements of electricity and
made physical goods, products, and service created
the ®© first from the EMF, then
patented the light bulb and Wireless Telephone
®©. All 3 service marks have
survived the march of time.
What's
NBS WiTEL®© RF Induction
Radio? "Checking
out the goods, products, and services related
attached to my grandfather's WiTEL®©
inventions at the annual CES show in Las Vegas, has
been my pet project since 1992," says Troy.
The
PowerMat and Row22 were just two items I found the
most interesting. The PowerMat was a take off on
his "All Green Earth Battery" (a non - fossil fuel
technology) patented in 1898.
The
only thing missing was the iron rod RF aerial, that
made the WiFi induction unit part his
"Telephone-del-Green" system. The ®©
metal coil and mesh EMW conglomeration, not only
emitted RF signals to help power his batteries, but
its firewire effect, (FiWi) caused the EMF to
modulated the amplitude of the signal to send voice
through space, via his WiTEL WiFi WiMAX 187
network. CLICK
FOR MORE - Ask Priscilla / The Consumer Electronics
Show /
CLICK
FOR MORE ABOUT
"Teléph-on-délgreen"
and MSU
Part
04h
/
Q.
If you
attach 'in a computer' to your application for a
process or Element from patent, is that enough to
pass the machine-or-transformation test?
A.
"The
patent office has been saying no, that you need to
show a special machine has been built for this
purpose," Lemley said,
SEE MORE
FOR THE Barbie says YES! -- if you're working on
the Copyright, Trademark first
angle.
"The Supreme Court
hasn't ruled on what is patentable since 1981,
Lemley said, leaving the federal appeals courts to
apply standards set in the infancy of the
information age to complex modern innovations.
"The
computer world has changed a lot since 1981. The
courts have the power to adapt the law and keep it
up with changing technologies, and they had been
doing that. But Bilski is a step backward," Lemley
said.
Not
all high-tech leaders want Bilski overturned.
Although it's true that health science industries
often rely on patents to recover research and
development investments, information technology
advances move too fast to benefit much from patent
protections.
"Patents
like the one at issue in Bilski give a bad name to
the patent system," said Horacio Gutierrez, a
Microsoft vice president for intellectual property
and licensing and deputy general counsel.
Inventor
Bilski, arguing for the Supreme Court review, says
business methods like his formula are crucial to
spurring economic growth. He says the appeals court
decision is "a throwback to the 19th century, when
our economy was primarily manufacturing-based, and
fails to recognize that many inventions are based
on ideas not necessarily tied to a machine or piece
of equipment."
But a recent case before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit points up the
difficulty of making such judgments in the age of
the Internet.
Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw of
WeatherWise USA Inc. in Pittsburgh developed a
computerized method for using weather data to
predict commodities prices and energy costs. But
their efforts to patent the formula were rejected
by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a decision
upheld by the federal appeals court.
The
inventors and their intellectual property lawyers
argue that novel business concepts deserve patent
protection as much as physical machines that
transform industries.
They
have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review
the appeals court ruling. They say that without the
ability to profit from such inventions, the biotech
and information services companies that have put
such places as Silicon Valley and Redmond, Wash.,
on the world innovation map won't be willing to
invest in research and development of other
breakthroughs.
The
patent office's and court's rejections of Bilski
and Warsaw's business method patent claim follows
years of rather liberal interpretations by patent
examiners as to what qualified as an invention. And
the new standard imposed, that the invention must
involve a machine or a physical transformation,
threatens to put the brakes on the busiest area of
patent application and analysis. Of the 13,779
"process" patents sought last year, just 1,643 were
granted.
Californians
hold 24% of the 20-year patents issued in the
United States, more than residents of any other
state.
The
Oct. 30 ruling in the case, referred to in legal
shorthand simply as Bilski, already has been cited
by the patent office as grounds for rejecting
applications on seismic data analysis and a method
of converting an Internet domain name to read both
left to right, for languages like English, and in
the opposite direction, for languages like Arabic
and Hebrew.
|