Beautiful friend...
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end.
SERIOUS THOUGHTS ON PATENTS, PATENTABILITY AND
INTELLECTUAL RESOURCES
The Desolate Situation Between 1998 - 2003
These pages elucidate upon the calamity
facing creative people in the 21'st century. It is, of course, impossible to
enumerate all the facts and arguments in great detail, along with the required
measure of outrage. The author (a small inventor), however, has nothing to lose
- neither job nor social status (see autobiography) - and so he doesn't mince words. His situation
is representative of thousands of deceived inventors. Please take time to read
these pages!
The fundamentals
Along with numerous lobby groups, such as
the "Bilderbergers", the so-called "World Economic Forum" met this year
(2000) to
discuss the current state of the world. Millions of unemployed, monetary and
financial crises, terrorism, AIDS, outbreaks of violence in third-world countries,
environmental disruption, climatic disasters, and so on, are problems facing all
of us. New worries, such as the uncontrollability of the Internet, the
biotechnological revolution and increasing globalization, were also discussed at
the World Economic Forum. Although the grounds for most of these troubles were never
clearly spelled out, the honourable members - perhaps afraid of news from some
genome res>arch centre - seemed to show signs of fear before a new
threat.
Undoubtedly, we urgently need stronger
protection of intellectual property. This is especially true in the
technological fields! However, in certain fields, creative thinking - i.e.
intellectual resources in whole fields of invention - stands endangered. These
fields ought to be singled out for special attention: although protection ought
to be possible, the granting of patents ought to be restricted - certainly, at
least, supervised by an international committee. For the first time in the
history of human thought, at the World Economic Forum in year 2000, the danger
of extinction facing creative thought has been recognized
The arise of the ´"think-slave" - THINK! PIG!
Every intelligent human being, particularly
professional scientists or inventors, would have met the following dilemma,
which is the crux of what has happened in recent years with intellectual
property. Suppose one has an important thought (a quantum-leap improvement of
some product, say) - to whom does this idea belong? To the thinker, or to the
thinker's boss? There you are! The inventor will be subject to the ultimate
management principle of the late twentieth century: LET SOMEBODY ELSE DO THE
THINKING, AND I'LL TAKE HIS INVENTION AND MAKE PROFIT'' This is a most ingenious
form of exploitation of human beings. It has been established all around the
world, in all sections of humans society. When does this ultimate form of
exploitation happen ? Well, whenever a "brains trust'' does the dirty
"think-work'' for its bosses. When highly-paid TV or radio talk show hosts ask
their viewers to send in gags to them - the media personality doesn't even need
to pay a script writer! Or when some newspaper editor asks his temporary
assistant to write a popular column for him, using his name, while he goes on
holiday. Or one of the biggest examples of intellectual exploitation: when the
managers of some global group of companies call for a collective "brain storm''
at world-wide branch level: no need to pay millions of dollars in consulting
fees to an industrial consultancy firm! A curious - or, depending on your point
of view, horrifying - double standard in society is revealed when a
whistle-blower blows the lid on some particular case of intellectual
exploitation: the brave individual, who invariably acts alone, is howled down as
antisocial and self-centered. His life is made extremely difficult by his
employer, sometimes even by civil authorities. The exploiter, on the other hand,
seems to be protected by an impenetrable shield of social standing and glamour.
He is absolved of all wrongdoing, always and everywhere! The ultimate management
principle - "LET SOMEBODY ELSE THINK FOR YOU'' - has led to a new class in
society, to social problems that have no precedent. We're seeing a new
phenomenon! Even those discredited, supposed "champions of the oppressed'' -
Marx, Engels, Lenin and co. - thought of exploitation only in terms of the
manual (not mental) capacity of the workers: the exploiter, according to the
Reds, had both the capital and the ideas. No wonder Communism ran out of
ideas!
Besides: The exceptional visionary
and genius Samuel
Beckett anticipated this tragedy in 1952 in his "Waiting for Godot".
See the excerpt: "THINK, PIG !
The highest form of exploitation of human ressources
One hundred years ago, inventors like Eastman,
Siemens, Edison, Marconi or Benz were patentees, investors, managers and
manufacturers in one person. As was normal at that time; the "proletarian''
worker had to transfer the "exploiters'' ideas into material reality, by means
of muscle power. But manual labour resources are not as fragile as intellectual
resources - intellectual resources consist of fragile ideas, of visions,
sometimes of dreams... And intellectual resources have a limitation, they cannot
be "mined'' or "regenerated" forever. But people with ideas are treated like
material ware - like crude oil, iron ore or gold in a river bed - as if they can
keep dreaming forever always new and new dreams. With more and more computers,
robots and machines performing the manual work, human exploitation has shifted
from the manual sphere to the intellectual sphere. This kind of exploitation is
more intensive and ruthless - and moreover, much more dangerous for the future
of mankind than anything in the past. We're already seeing the evidence, before
our very eyes: human beings exploited for their intelligence are becoming
increasingly poor; those applying the "Let them do the thinking''- management
principle are becoming increasingly rich. Nobody, no revolution, no politics, no
ideology seems to be able to stop this divergency. This highest sort of exploitation is the main reason for the current crisis in intellectual property.
We are in a situation where nobody is capable of measuring the world-wide
consequences of a total collapse of intellectual property rights. Mankind has
cold-bloodedly ridden rough-shod over a divine right - a holy natural right -
and now we are beginning to bear the consequences.
Lets take a closer look to the recent situation:
Let`s contemplate some examples of these
consequences, and take a closer look at the recent situation:
In Europe, 15 years ago many European
politicians talked about the need to establish new progressive companies. An
"innovation offensive'' was supposed to have taken place, which was supposedly
necessary for solving our difficult unemployment problems. Special technology
brains trusts (in German, Weisenrat, or "Council of Wise Men'') were
founded. These brain trusts advocated the founding of "patent agentures'' and
"technology forums'' in numerous European countries and cities in order to
"mobilize the creativity of innovative people''. Between 1984 - 1987,
desperately, and with immense effort, they tried to seize the advantage in
robotics, informatics, virtual intelligence and automation technology from Far
East competitors.
They assumed many new places of employment would
be created. The magic words were "research'' and "development''. Innumerable
research initiatives, sponsored by governments, were established, with
great-sounding names like "Esprit'', "Brite-Euram'', "Eureka'' and so on.
Billions of Deutsche Marks of hard-earned taxes were handed out to the
broad-minded. But the real output was very small: just have a look at the
unemployment statistics in the years 1990 - 1998 ! In the electronic and
informatics industries, the slight - and temporary - economic recovery during
the period 1998 - 2000 was due to the internet and telecommunication boom; but
these are technologies that are protected by monopolies, which on their part are
directly protected and sponsored by governments.
The truth about the situation in the
technology sector is simple: virtually none of the products or methods that had
been developed under the auspices of the research initiatives of the eighties
have resulted in satisfactory protection through patent! Only in those
technology fields where governments or government-near monopolies placed their
protectionist hands around technological novelties, was the financial ruin of
inventors - and the investors too - averted!
This is why the time has come to review
the effectiveness of current patent policy. According to this policy,
patents are granted without strategic focus, without thinking about the current
reality and where it's heading. Moreover, we have to reconsider the sense and
benefits of the current patent system. This is especially true in the high-tech
sector, which for decades has been shaped by the goal of profitability by all
scientists and politicians.
The arise of "patent pyramids"
The international patent system has been
corrupted by big business. The aim of the game now is, "Who can build the
biggest pyramid of patents?'' Some large companies hold thousands (!) of
patents. In each case, this myriad of patents is based around a small number of
key patents (so-called "core-patents'') in groundbreaking technologies. The smallest
"improvement'' is filed by the company's patent engineers as a new or additional
patent application to the patent office. In this way, "pyramids'' are
generated.
The core patent, together with the
pyramid it heads, collapses when it is annulled, invalidated orrendered ineffective, perhaps because of some basic improvement in the
"state of the art'' (which is formally specified under the preamble of the
"patent claims'' in the patent application); or perhaps because somebody has
found a way to weasel around the "state of the art''. A rival company (or
a company with its greedy eyes on your patent) can initiate a so-called
"nullity action'', or annullidation lawsuit. Then all your time and money,
as an inventor, goes to waste in a futile fight against a company, and you
end up with nothing.
The victims of this system are big and
small, eminent inventors as well as charlatans, young entrepreneurs as well as
long-established companies with a fine tradition. Even global players can be
counted amongst its victims - global companies who thought they could eliminate
their opposition by embarking on an orgy of patent filing.
A small inventor cannot build a "pyramid",
and besides, he has no chance against these pyramid builders. He (or she) can't
even afford a good attorney; and if he wants to take the risk and patent his
invention world-wide, it'd cost upwards of $US 50.000. Even if he is lucky
enough to be granted a world-wide patent, the inventor had better not be too
overjoyed and fall for the smugness of thinking that he's secured what he wants
-- his luck could end at any moment, as the millstone begins to grind and the
greedy big fish begin their litigation. It is high time that the current patent
"game'' carried public warnings! But of course, we hear nothing of the
kind.
PATENT INFRINGEMENT occurs on a huge
scale, and the authorities are virtually helpless to do anything about it.
In 1998, a statement by some european patent offices was widely publicized in
the media: more than 60 thousand million Deutsche Marks (8 billion USD) had
recently been invested in research and development of new technologies. Sounds
like typical financial good news you can read on any day in the newspaper,
right? But the guy speaking - the former president of a patent office of an
important european country- was speaking in outrage.
The problem came out of control.
Why?
You see, what had happened was that under
the government-backed initiatives (such as "Eureka'', "Prometheus'', and so on)
governments and research departments of large companies (mostly automobile
companies) had completely and intentionally ignored the patents that had been
issued long before through the patent offices. Various patent office staff had
walked outside one day, and realized that a lot of the machines and devices
around them looked familiar - in fact, they had personally worked on the patents
years before! But the patents in the patent offices had not been bought: none of
the small-fry inventors had been made an offer by the various companies.
Calling a spade a spade, the inventions had been stolen - with official
authorization by the governments!
These inventions include: cars with on-board
computers; ultrasonic distance sensors; automatic guiding and steering systems;
automatic distance control for convoys of cars or trucks (as if the vehicles
were on an invisible string); automatic traffic congestion warning systems;
automatic traffic-dependent speed-adaptation systems. Many, many other
inventions were involved.
Normally, when a patent officer spots an
invention that he knows was stolen, he cannot say anything about it, because his
privileged information is classified - he's usually the only one who knows the
real inventor's name. He's compelled to keep silent. But in the eighties and
early nineties the problem grew out of control. The guys in the patent offices
now knew: not only one inventor, not ten inventors, but hundreds of inventors
had been deceived: their patents had been infringed! The patent officers
also knew that inventors who patented base-technologies had no chance to suit
for patent infringement (because of laws like §29 and similar, which will be
explained in the following pages - wait and see!). So the mentioned patent
office president became very angry and held a press conference. He said that
more than 8.000 million dollars had been invested in research and development of
"new'' inventions, whose patents had actually already been issued and published
by the patent offices!
The companies did not run a "literature
search'' - or a "patent search'' - on any of the innumerable search engines and
networks that have been set up to enable fast access to new publications and
patents. They did not have the sense of duty to uphold intellectual property, or
a sense of justice towards the small inventor.
The "Invention-bonus"
HOW IS THE PATENT SYSTEM OPEN TO
CORRUPTION ? Your patent is stolen most easily in the period after it is filed
and before it is published; i.e.during the "preliminary examination''
phase.
In this period, neither the name of the inventor, nor the name of the applicant,
is absolutely fixed - even though these names necessarily had to appear on the
filing document! In the PE-phase, these names can be exchanged or transferred or
cancelled as pleasured; e.g. if the patent attorney who originally sent the filing
paper to the office, notifies the office of his rectification-wishes.
Put simply, the procedure is as follows.
Suppose I come up with some invention, and you come to me after 3 months wanting
to buy it. No problem! I just look up the filing date andfile number, I go to my
attorney, and my attorney sends a notice "in my name'' to the patent office,
telling them that the data (including name and address of the inventor)
previously filed under number so-and-so should be placed under your name. That's
it. Simple. The invention runs under your name: if the patent boffins recognize
the invention's patentability and novelty, the patent document will be issued
under your name to your address. You have plenty of time to play this game
- in some countries like Austria it takes 2 - 6 years for a patent to be
issued and published!
The inventor who "sells'' his invention in
this way usually completely renounces his right to be identified as the
"inventor'' - even on the patent letter-head. The buyer acquires all rights to
the invention, including the right to be named as inventor! THIS IS STANDARD
PROCEDURE IN SOME COUNTRIES LIKE GERMANY AND AUSTRIA for "employee-inventors''
(i.e. those who discover the invention e.g product- or method-improvement while
working for their employer). If the inventor is in luck, the employer
pays a so-called "invention-bonus''. If the inventor is not in
luck, then the employer says that actually this invention was his
idea all along; and gives notice to this effect to the patent office (if a
patent application has been filed) via an attorney. The inventor gets nothing.
Resistance to such practice on the part of the lowly inventor is not recommended
- it normally earns him the contempt of his employer, and ends in his
dismissal from the company.
If swapping names doesn't appeal to you, you
can always get the inventor to withdraw the original application, and serve
notice that the invention will be refiled with the "rectified'' address and
inventor's details. (The second filing letter appears with your name and address
under the original filing number). You see, it's very simple!
The impossibility to "buy patents"
Now, you might think that you want to do the
right thing and actually buy the patent off me AFTER it has been granted and
published. This would be very good of you - a commendable attitude. But there
is a number of ways in which financial ruin awaits you, and which makes it
eminently more attractive for you to try to pressure me to hand over my
invention before it is published.For big players, it makes sense to
steal from and deceive inventors before an invention is
granted.
First, if you want to buy the patent off me,
an official contract has to be drawn up. Then the patent office is to be given
the order to transfer the property rights from me to you, and to issue a new
patent document that is yours. Apart from the fact that this procedure will cost
you a lot of money, the patent office will insist on keeping the real name of
the inventor. Out of the goodness of my heart, I may wish to renounce my right
to be known as the inventor - but equally well, I might not. And then my name
stays on your document, as "inventor'', while you are merely the "holder of the
patent'', or "patentee".
But listen: if you think that you can cover
up the identity of the inventor - even if I do renounce my right to be known as
the inventor when you buy the patent off me - then you're out of luck. The
patent document and patent number were already published when the patent was
first issued! And in all the official gazettes and Internet sites, my name will
keep on appearing as the inventor long after you receive your cherished patent
documents. And the final nail in your quest to ensure my anonymity is: my name
is registered on a patent roll at the patent office forever. (Some patent
offices keep the rolls secret, others don't.)
So, OK, you've bought my patent, and you can
produce and sell the product exclusively until the patent expires
(usually about 18-20 years after the date of filing the application). You're
allowed to improve this patent, or you can use it to key other technological
fields, and you can build a "pyramid'' of patents containing this
patent.
But I remain known as the inventor. Why is
this important to you ? Because as the inventor, I`m always allowed to
improve my invention, which might be a new core in a new so-called "core
patent". Once I do this - introducing, say, some vast improvement in
technology - then you can`t make the same improvement, and you face potential
ruin as I drive you out of the market with my vastly improved product. It
would be up to me - not you - to grant rights to licenses and license products,
based on the new core-technology. I could build my own "pyramid", and your
pyramid would collapse into a useless heap.
This happens all the time. One well-known
example occurred when electronic video cam-corders were first developed. At that
time, EUMIG had about 2000 patents all around the world on cine-cameras (a lot
of us ordinary people used EUMIG`s 8mm film cameras). But when JVC and Sony
brought out their cam-corders in the early 1980's, EUMIG's entire patent pyramid
collapsed and the company went broke within 2 years. They had no right to sue
against introduction of the new technology, nor were they allowed to produce
their own electronic cameras based on their own patent!
So, if you buy a patent off me, and forget
to conclude a contract with me saying that ''all further inventions and patents
that issue as a result of the original patent'' become yours, then you`d have to
ask me for permission every time I improve the original invention, especially if
the invention contains a new "key technology" that I own. I would have,
of course, ensured that my new core patent(s) are present in a tangled web of
patents - i.e. a patent pyramid- and in this way I would corner the market. You
would pay the first time around, and you`d have to keep paying if you want to
stay in the market. What a hassle you`ve found yourself in, just because you
wanted to be honest and buy the patent off me after it was published
!
The situation with license agreements
Now let`s have a look at the situation with
LICENSING AGREEMENTS. These are granted for the use, marketing or sale of a
device or method. We are seeing the same international calamities as withpatents - the licensing system is riddled with corruption.
In nearly all the important cases today, a
so-called "factory license'' (or "in-house license'') is granted: a
well-established firm - which is already manufacturing or producing some
product, and which is well-placed in the international market - grants another
company the right to produce, manufacture and sell the product. The right
includes the right to utilize all technological know-how necessary to
manufacture the product or deliver the service. In these "licensing
agreements'', the actual patent number - or patent itself - is barely
mentioned. The only way you would hear of the inventor in such a deal is
if the inventor himself is already actively manufacturing and marketing the
product.
However, in many cases, it is impossible
to tell whether a highly-publicized invention was indeed invented by the person
claiming to have done so. (Even if he didn't, you'd virtually never hear from
the true inventor.) Such careerists make their money with or without patent or
invention rights. The reason for their success is their clever marketing, and
their knowledge of the loop-holes of the system. They may have patents; they my
have paid clever attorneys; they may have built a "pyramid'' for stymie their
rivals - but to get people off their scent, it `´s usually enough just to publish
the new product (calling it an "invention'') in a magazine or newspaper.
Once publicized, trying to patent the idea would be in vain anyway. Besides,
people are thinking, if it is in the newspaper, so it MUST have been patented,
and so, it can become accepted in the public imagination.
And in any case, it can even be a
disadvantage to have the patent office publish a patent document in some gazette
or on an Internet website. A patent application -in contrast to a prospectus in
a magazine, say - requires a very exact description of the invention. All the
better for the wolves in big companies -the patent specialists - whose job it is
to pick out just the parts of the document they want to cover or to copy. The
president of the Austrian patentee federation pointed out exactly this in a
television broadcast in 1997.
You might have been under the impression
that the idea of granting a patent right through the patent offices is to
protect the inventor - a creative and ingenious individual. This is a nostalgic
fairy-tale! The patent description is protected, but the inventor is not. Can
you find one example anywhere in the world, in which a "small inventor" has won
an infringement lawsuit against an international lobby of global players ? And
if you can find an inventor that had indeed won (e.g. as in the well-known case
of intermittent windshield wipers on cars), the poor guy will have paid more
money to his attorneys than he received back from the infringing
company.
All of these practices are global
problems. The corruption of the international patent and licensing culture is
perhaps one of the main causes - it`s certainly a symptom! - of the crisis of
extreme rationalization, insecurity, unemployment, short-term employment, stress
and frustration that we are witnessing today.
The main reasons for the recent
problems of mankind
1)
THE WORLDWIDE POLICY OF deficit spending, leading to endless liabilities.
The budget-policy of most nations has always
been determined by the suggestion that both material and intellectual resources
were available endlessly.Therefore the people responsible for this policy
supposed they could expand national debts and budget expenses as they pleased
and could shift the time for repayment far into the future. This policy was very
short sighted. Budget-deficits are nothing more than pre-accesses to anticipated
tax receipts which, it is assumed, will come from future taxpayers. This means
that the current generation uses the taxes that a future (unknown) generation
will pay (let us hope!) This pyramid-game can only function as long as our
descendants have the intelligence to create enough patent-protected innovations
to keep the present economic system continuously running at a high level. Today
everyone understands that money is not the only engine to keep it running. 40
years ago it wasn`t understood, or people were not willing to understand it,
even with confirmed evidence. In the early eighties governments worldwide began
to panic. Several years ago the deficit of most national budgets increased
dangerously. The reason for this excessive debt policy was the explosion of the
price of crude oil and raw material in the years 1973/1974 and 1979/1980.
Fearing an increase in unemployment, the governments trebled their national
budgets to support employment. But this was a thoughtless reaction. The
profitableness of national bonds and securities increased by up to twenty
percent and investments became very expensive. A global crash seemed to be
unavoidable. In 1982, at the climax of budget-expansions, worldwide national
debts had increased tenfold since 1975. Because of this a sharp change in
budget-policy happened everywhere (so-called Reagenomics, Thatcherism etc.).
But, obviously, it was too late to remedy the situation. Now in the year 2000
the majority of nations have increased their debts by more than one hundredfold,
compared with 1975, although their budgets are now "well-balanced". This is
because today the year-by-year repayments and interests for the old debts amount
to more than the entire national debts of the late eighties!In the last ten
years governments see the privatisation of national investment firms and
institutions as a last resort. In some countries telecommunications, water
supply, education systems, mail, refuse collection and even prisons have become
privatised. Another approach to solving these problems is the merger of smaller
companies and institutions, and by radical globalisation in all branches and
economic spheres. If these efforts had not happened the western economy would
certainly have decreased to a very poor standard, comparable with the recent
situation in Russia and other former socialistic economic systems. However, the
old budget-deficits hang on all national economies like the "Sword of Damocles"
in the same manner as before and it impossible for governments to regulate
negative occurrences in future economy. Put simply, they have no money and no
longer have any chance to open new tax sources, and, as a result, they are no
longer able to appear as players in the future.
2)
THE TOTAL COLLAPSE AND RUIN OF THE
INTERNATIONAL PATENT- LICENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
The most important reason for the
emergence of the present world problems in the field of licence and patenting is
unknown to many people. We are living in a world where international creativity and patency is
in crisis. The ordinary man-in-the-street who is not well acquainted with
patency matters does not realise this. He supposes that the present accumulation
of High Technology products on the market coincides with theincreased inventive
activity in the laboratories. In truth, however, most of these "new" products
are based on ideas that are more than 10 years old. Inventing is in
deep crisis. This is a direct consequence of the fact that the industries have
dealt with the resources of inventiveness and human spirit in the same
irresponsible manner as the material resources on earth: like robbers and
vandals!Invention is not a worthwhile practice anymore! The number of
new applications for patents world-wide is decreasing, especially those of
"small" inventors. For example, the number of Austrian patent applications
decreased from 13,000 in the 1976 down to approximately 3,000 in the 1998.
Similar declines can also be seen in other states. One politician, in a
television show, stated cynically that workers who become unemployed due to
rationalisation should in future "invent" their own employment-base
themselves! He obviously has no idea of how difficult this
is.
Note: In countries btw
national Patent Offices where they began in the eighties granting patents
on TRIVIALITIES, or on computer-implementable algorithms, or on Software- und SW-derivatives,
on non-technicistic logics, business methods, medicinal treatment, genetics,
plants, animals e.g,
the number of applications and issued patents became INCREASING year by year; in
a contrary to some european national PO`s. This fact does mainly concern
WIPO-applications (WO..), applications filed to the US-Patent Office, and to the
EPO, Japan, England etc....
When will Jesus Christ get patented?
Meanwhile, the crisis of inventing,
respectively, the world of patents and licences, has affected almost all areas
of industry. Global Players are concerned in the same way as small businesses or
retailers. Young entrepreneurs, who would like to establish their own individual
business, are victims of the crisis too. At present only few industries
-medicine, genetic engineering, biotechnology, environmental-technology, games
& toys, sports-goods and similars - are an exception to the patent crisis.
These are the areas where sufficient legal protection of new products may
hardly be possible, and where issued patents may lead to successful utilisation
and financial benefit. The chances of successful financial exploitation of a
patent application by "small" inventors has recently been estimated at
less than 1% of all inventions that are filed to patent offices.
Now let`s consider the world of Global
Players, where the crazy activities of the sphere of creative resources and
patent matters goes on and on: More and more peculiar ideas are born and the
patent-culture decays increasingly. 10 years ago they began to patent the
genes of plants and animals and now it is only a matter of time before patent
applications will be made for the first genetically engineered humans.
Meanwhile, a US genetics company has already patented the genetic nature of a
specific human race living in South Africa - thus making them the sole
proprietors of this tribe. The biologist Craig Venter, who successfully analysed
the complete human genome, has claimed about 6,500 patents (!) for his own
intellectual property. (This was reported in the German magazine "DER SPIEGEL").
In 1998 some news agencies reported that American scientists had
successfully decoded the genome of JESUS CHRIST from a drop of blood that has
been extracted from the well-known "Turin Shroud". I suppose these
scientists are planning to clone Jesus Christ!
Don`t laugh: It
would be no surprise - not at all - if these people applied for a patent on
their "research- results". This would mean a patent on Jesus Christ
himself!
Patent
crisis leads to deflation and price decay
Once again lets take a look at "genetic
engineering ": Ordinary people are wondering more and more about the trend in
genetically manipulated plants and life forms. Do we necessarily need these?
Hasn`t mankind lived thousands of years without genetically manipulated corn and soy? Why, damn it!
do the scientists not concentrate their minds on the invention of new
electronics or new mechanical products?
The answer is very simple: In the first
case they can still patent "technical" news; in the other case they cannot do it
anymore!
For
many years the large global players have been aware of the fact that patenting
is a question of survival. This applies to all types of scientific
research and discoveries.
Global players exploit
all possibilities to protect the "intellectual property" of their new product or
process, as allowed by the recent patent laws and the respective governing
bodies. Questions of morality or ethics are often treated with contempt. As
a consequence, the results of positive scientific research, which are very
important for the future of mankind, become luxuries that are made available
only to a very small minority. Thus, few businesses make high profits from
the patenting of new ideas, even though those new ideas have been proven as
"patentable". On the other hand, many ingenious products that were developed
and marketed by highly qualified technicians and experts, following years of
painstaking work, have suffered under price decay – from the result that
there is little or no patent protection. Even if patent rights are issued
through the patent office, they are not always worth the paper they are written
on, as the patent protection is insufficient, and as a consequence, can be
circumnavigated or improved by competitors. When this happens the typical
jargon used by patent officers in such cases is: "The claims in the patent
application are not sufficiently defined, and the demarcation is unclear with
regard to the standard state of the art. As a result, no legal constancy
can be guaranteed." This means that if a competitor seeks to nullify or
render the patent invalid, the patent has little or no chance of
survival, and all the patentee's exhaustive efforts in research and
development are wasted. Furthermore the patentee is entirely liable for the
cost of any lawsuit to rectify this injustice, including the expenses for the
patent experts.
At present the areas mainly affected are the
so-called "New Economy", i.e. almost all of the computer, electronics and
automation technology branches, the information- and telecommunication
industries, the mechanical engineering, and finally, the software industries.
Some years ago these industries were praised worldwide for having “companies
in which highly qualified scientists, engineers and technicians could make
their careers and earn huge amounts of money." Look around at these
industries today! Every type of company, whether it is a global organisation, or
a medium to small enterprise, would have no need to rationalise and reduce
manpower to extremes if their products were sufficiently protected from copying
by competitors. The results instead are continual price decay and loss of
profits.
Only an efficient global patenting and
licensing system would have been in a position to offer the correct level of
protection of intellectual property - but now, in the year 2001, it is too
late to reform the patent right and the patent practise! We will go to
analyse the current situation and provide proof of this statement in the
following chapters.
The fundamental reason for the crisis: inhuman patent practise
The fundamental reason for the crisis of the
patenting system can be easily found if one looks back some decades. The main
faults lie with the inhuman patent practices. Innumerable ideas,
inventions and patent applications - made by intelligent creative entrepreneurs,
scientists, small inventors, and employees - were "legally stolen" by lawyers
and "technology experts".
Patent attorneys always preferred the
rich enterprises, whose lawyers made their luxurious living by
never-ending patent suits and legal battles. Creative employees of
high tech industries, so-called "think-tanks", were mostly outlawed from the
beginning. As a result patent-rights were often exploited by people or
organisations lacking in moral or technical competence to properly exploit these
works, but simply had sufficient financial resources to see it through. And
finally, there were the interests of the politicians, the military and
monopolists who, if they saw a necessity, did not waste a second in
"expropriating" the inventors or patentees' rights"under the cover of the
night". You don't believe this? The legalisation of "secret expropriations" even
formed part of the patent statute books in many states! Indeed, the point is
well illustrated by the classic example "§29" of the Austrian patent
laws.
Incredible, but sadly, this
was true (in German):
§29. (1)
Fordert es das Interesse der bewaffneten Macht oder der öffentlichen Wohlfahrt
oder sonst ein zwingendes Bundesinteresse, dass eine Erfindung, für welche ein
Patent angemeldet oder bereits erteilt worden ist, ganz oder teilweise von der
Bundesverwaltung selbst benützt oder der allgemeinen Benützung überlassen wird,
so ist die Bundesverwaltung berechtigt, dieses Patent oder das Recht zur
Benützung der Erfindung auf Grund des vom zuständigen Landeshauptmann
geschöpften Erkenntnisses gegen angemessene Entschädigung ganz oder teilweise zu
enteignen und die Erfindung auf Grund des Enteignungserkenntnisses in Benützung
zu nehmen oder der allgemeinen Benützung zu überlassen. Zuständig ist der
Landeshauptmann des Landes, in dem der Anmelder oder der Patentinhaber seinen
Wohnsitz hat. Kommen mehrere Länder in Betracht, so steht der Stelle, welche die
Enteignung beantragt hat, die Wahl frei.
(2) Bei
Gefahr im Verzug kann die Bundesverwaltung nach vorläufiger Bewilligung des
zuständigen Landeshauptmanns bereits auf Grund des eingebrachten
Enteignungsgesuches, jedoch vorbehaltlich des nachfolgenden
Enteignungserkenntnisses, die Erfindung sofort in Benützung nehmen oder der
allgemeinen Benützung überlassen.
(3) Außer dem
Patentinhaber gebührt auch jenen Personen, welchen die Benützung der Erfindung
bereits rechtlich zustand, falls sie dieser nunmehr verlustig werden, eine
angemessene Entschädigung durch den Bund.
(4)
Hinsichtlich des Maßes der Entschädigung ist auf das Zustandekommen einer
Vereinbarung mit dem Anmelder oder Patentinhaber und mit den etwaigen
Benützungsberechtigten hinzuwirken; kommt eine solche nicht zustande, so steht
die Entscheidung über die eingebrachte Entschädigungsklage den Gerichten,
erforderlichenfalls nach Einvernehmung von Sachverständigen, zu. Der
Patentinhaber hat das Recht, einen Sachverständigen zu wählen. Beim Ausmaß der
Entschädigung ist in allen Fällen bloß auf jene Wirkung Rücksicht zu nehmen,
welche die Enteignung des Patentes für das Inland zur Folge
hat.
(5) Die
Verhandlung über das Maß der Entschädigung hat für die Ausübung der Befugnisse,
welche die Bundesverwaltung in Ansehung der Erfüllung für sich oder für die
Bevölkerung in Anspruch nimmt, keine hemmende Wirkung.
(6) Von einer
solchen Inanspruchnahme des Patentes sind die im Patentregister eingetragenen
Interessenten durch das Patentamt sofort zu verständigen.
(english
translation):
§29.
(1) If the armed authority or the public welfare or any other compelling
state-interest demands, that an invention, for which a patent is applied or
already became issued, should be completely or partially remain in the use of
the state-administration or left to general use, so the
state-administration on appropriate compensation is entitled to
expropriate this patent or the right to use the invention on base of the
conclusion acquired by the competent chief of the regional federal
administration. Competent is THAT chief of the regional federal
administration of THAT country, in which the applicant or the patentee has his
residence. If several countries come into consideration, so that authority,
which has applied for the expropriation, is free to chose one.
(2) If there is danger of
delay, so the state-administration can, already after temporary approval of the
competent chief of the regional federal administration on base of the filed
expropriation-plea, but subject to the following expropriation-conclusion, the
invention immediately take in use or leave it to the general
use.
(3) Besides the patentee,
also those persons, to which the use of the invention was already entitled
legally, but now forfeiting this, an appropriate compensation is due through the
state.
(4) Concerning the value
of the compensation should get aspired the realization of an agreement between
the applicant or patentee and the possible beneficiaries; if such an agreement
would fail, then the courts are entitled to decide the filed
compensation-complaint - if necessary, after hearing experts. The
patentee has the right to choose an expert. In ALL cases, concerning the value
of the compensation, regard is to be taken merely on THAT effect the
expropriation of the patent has consequence for the
home-country.
(5) The negotiation about
the value of said compensation has no hindering effect for the
state-administration in respect to the fulfillment of the authoritarian
utilization for itself or for the population.
(6) In the case of such
an utilization of the patent, the interested parties registered in the
patent-register are to inform immediately through the
patent-office.
This expropriation
law-paragraph is a slap into the face of each sensible human being with a
healthy conscience!This unbelievable law-section has given
permission to expropriate inventors` rights without of their knowledge and
consent - at "fog and dark night"! Because no word has been written in the
sections, that any patentee or applicant is to get personally a notice of an
"authoritative utilization"! The text of paragraph (6) only tells of "interested
parties" registered in the "patent-register". (It even is not said, whether the
patent-register of the expropriated patentee is meant. As you know, a
registration into the patent-register begins with the publication of a patent
description - see §80 of the Austrian Patent Law. As long as a new patent
application is in the examination-phase, no "registered interested party" can
exist.)
How did "patent-expropriation" look in pratise?
How did the execution of this
expropriation-law §29 look in the patent-practice? Here is the answer: Only
those inventors could have been victims thereof, who had applied for important
patent-applications (respectively inventions), where technological significance
and importance of the formulated patent-claim began to appear in outlines
already during the preliminary examination or far within the period of validity
of an issued patent! And - the worst of all: it always had to do with an
important basis-technology, a so-called "core"-patent; that means: no "weasel
around" and no improvement possible! Because, if a patent-claim is improvable,
no necessity is existing to expropriate such a patent!
Constructing an "interest by the government" or a
demand of " public welfare " was certainly no problem. With this law-paragraph,
the state, for many decades, created a legal remedy to justify any type of
encroachment against a small inventor, whose important patent-applicated
invention "endangered" a research iniative or a project ordered by the
government (e.g. a military project; or (simple) a electronic road pricing
system for highways). If more than one inventor became named in the patent
application, or if the assignee has been a company (and no single inventor),
they got more problems. An inventor, who had invented something truly
substantial and important (not sun glasses for dogs or similar) had therefore
intentionally to keep his mouth, otherwise there he was constantly at risk to
lose the patent through smart expropriation, better said: through legal
rob...
What happened to such an expropriated patentee, who
usually knew nothing about that ? Look at the semantics and syntax of the law:
With that moment where the expropriation took place "on base of the conclusion
acquired by the competent chief of the regional federal administration", he
turned from being a patentee into being a patent-infringer! If lucky, he got
tolerated by the expropriator as an outsider and grumbler, who does peculiar
handicrafts in any backyard without license...The worst malice in the semantics
of expropriation-law §29 is the fact that it enables
interpretation-possibilities, that nobody - not even an expert - is
reasoning.
For example: An inventor is suggested he may
withdraw the application, because "there anyway would be no chance on success to
get the patent granted through the PTO" - but in truth, this is it one type of a
clever expropriation...Or, another example: A patent application with a patent
not yet granted through the PTO, but in a promising examination-status, get sold
via an agent (maybe he is a patent attorney); whereby the inventor get a few
dollars, respectively Euros....The agent says: an official patent-sale took
place - but note: without a transfer of titel and patent-rights registered at
the patent-office ! The inventor is happy to get money, and he never take a look
to his invention or patent anymore, that he allegedly had "sold... Or, another
possibility: an inventor is suggested to hand over a written waiver after the
patent became officially granted through the patent-office. He is now allowed to
name himself officially an "inventor" - instead of receiving fee or royalties...
Maybe he even becomes quoted in literature or other media. If he refuses this
recommendation (it will do when he doesn't recognize a sign of his patent
attorney, or he ignores the flare in his agent`s eyes), then he remains
"implausibly". In practice this means: the authorities, chambers of
Commerce, firms or local offices get a hint - if they do any investigation -
that patentee X "shall not be seen as a real serious inventor". Because such
negative informations always have the bad attribute to propagate as a rumor from
person to person and from office to office, such an inventor has no chance, to
be considered as credible and plausible partner.
Please hold on and reflect it: How would such an
inventor have been able to fight back? How could you explain to a lawyer, or to
a reporter or to a government-officer, that you once have invented an optically
readable memory, at a time many years ago, where a CD-ROM (that we now know as
such, but that the inventor in his patent application certainly had named
completely different), still was available on the market not at all? How can you
explain your conversation partner, who is no patent-expert, that you are a
serious inventor, and no swindler? How can he get the true impression? Of course
such a „hint" evoked bad disadvantages for the inventor in attaining licenses
for trade, membership in chambers, bank-credits, insurances, money from
research- and development- fonds, governmental projects etc. The most infamous
fact in such a secret patent-expropriation-process: there never was a chance for
the inventor on investigation; it was hopeless! This infamous method got very
well tested during the last decades, especially in regard to small inventors
with important patent applications, or small patentees who claimed essential
core-technologies. Especially to fool those people - respectively to protect the
industrial mainstream from threat through non-conformed high intelligence -
these smart methods became "developed"! And if (unscheduled and incredible),
someone indeed had succeeded to offer the evidence that he got patently
„expropriated “ - for such a purpose, said patent expropriation law §29 had been
"invented"... This method has functioned so perfect and smoothly, that even many
patent attorneys never became suspicious about the fact, that their usual
behavior to inventors (what they took for granted for years and years), in truth
was part of an infamous expropriation procedure, that actually was not conform
with a patent-culture in the intention and original sense of the legislator.
Because hardly ever in practice such a stealthy patent expropriation got
registered in a patent data register (though regulation!), there therefore is no
possibility to check how often an application of law §29 has occurred in the
past... God only knows, how often they made usage of this
paragraph, and how many inventors got expropriated in such a malignant way. Is
it dozens, hundreds, or even thousands? And such laws existed or exist
world-wide!
WTO (Uruguay-Round) modified this patent-practise
Some years ago, mainly on demand of the United States, the WTO (Uruguay
Round) modified this absurd practice through a new international agreement
(TRIPS). In Austria, as a consequence thereof, they replaced
patent-expropriation-law §29 with requirement of "compulsory-licenses" (§36). As
a result thereof, at least, a single inventor cannot become an infringer of his
own patent anymore... But the reason for this agreement was surely no pure
philanthropy; rather they realized, that expropriations are not worthwhile any
more, because they already have been expropriating all important inventions and
core-patents one ever invented... Not only the recent ones, oh no! Also the
FUTURE-PATENTS - the "not-yet-applied-patent-applications"! They stole ALL
concepts having any impact to the future...!!
For all readers, who are interested in the international patent-law-guidelines
within the whole
framework of the TRIPS-agreement's of 1994 (Uruguay-round), here is the
link:
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm#5
(see Patent Rights; Other Use Without Authorization of the Right Holder/ Article 31)
The horrible consequences
We now take a look at the horrible consequences of this inhuman patent-practice:
Many important basis-inventions and core patents useful as keys for innumerable
secondary applications, were in the hands of intelligent and high-talented
individualists (among them were many employees too) or small firms, and not in
the property of global players btw larger companies.
Nobody - not even in his very dreams - reasoned about the necessity to
consolidate those individualists rights and to engage them for cooperations and
joint ventures with the big partners. Not with the priority to produce the
inventions physically as soon as possible, but rather, to take care that in
future those products have sufficient patent-protection! Granted rights (claims)
in a core-patent often could be of help to supply many following secondary
inventions and new patent applications in the same technological field with
patent protection all around the world. It`s similar to a puzzle. The inventor
himself knows the best way how to apply his patent in the best way - not the (often
anonyme) exploiter! In this way, many industries would have had acquired a
sufficient industrial protection for their products,
and the „chaotic turbo-capitalism" would have had organized itself to a
continual canalized, controllable and moderate human advance. Actually,
this would have been very simple: their patent descriptions and personal data
were investigable for everyone in the public reading rooms of each patent-office,
or could be searched and downloaded from any patent data base (since 10 yrs via
internet).
Many large companies, agencies, patent attorneys and/or patent investigators
knew about the existence of important core-patents, but hardly anyone of
them established a contact with the inventors. If, however, the
inventor tried to contact an optional big partner - and not vice versa -
then his credibility automatically became doubted. Besides, if he ever had
pointed out any patent infringments, he had to prepare himself for
lawsuits and lawyer-fees - so that he was quite stunning with open mouth! Also,
it was practically impossible for a small inventor to grant any licenses to a
larger company. A valid patent was not enough. He would have had to establish
the proof of the legal validity and legal sustainability of his patent under all
circumstances. For example: He at first would have had to win a lawsuit on patent
infringement against a competitor, or a lawsuit on patent-invalidity! But that
- in the most cases - would not have been possible. Already for that reason, because he
hardly would have had found a patent attorney, who had confirmed such a positive
attestation that had enough credibility before a court. Moreover: To appear
sufficiently strong and creditable before a court, he would have had to develop
the invention up to productability, and besides, up to successful marketing.
However, the projects mostly did fail not only for lack of promotion and bank
capital, but also for the reason, that a small inventor even did not get a
trade license through regional authorities.In some countries, namely in
Europe, it was much more easier establishing and opening a brothel or a peep-show than exploiting
the own patents on an industrial base.An Inventor had to show
diploma, examinations and skills
certifications.
Otherwise,
he became
considered as too stupid for innovative activity, and he received no permission for
patent exploitation!
This way, the
actual "right on a patent" was drifting - step by step, and decade by decade -
from inventors to large enterprises, that had the power to disconcert patent
lawsuits and postpone infringement cases, and were capable to honor their
lawyers well!
"Black holes" in patent protection
The result of these practices: More and more
„black holes" (important technologies
without any patent protection). Innumerable patents became successfully
liquidated by invalidity-lawsuits. The Global Players tried to fight
back through filing large numbers of new patent applications with inferior
Inventive Level. The consequence: more and more invalidity-lawsuits, and
inflation in numbers of worthless patents. Very late, in October
2003, the FTC, US Federal Trade Commission, recognized the serious situation,
and pled on reform of the patent system in their report (see
http://www.sensortime.com/ftc_rpt.htm
In the last years, the 3rd-world-countries took patents and licenses of
industrialized countries less and less seriously. The - for times after
times (decades) - applied practice to handicap small inventors and to promote
the large industry (even: to consider patents of individualists as „skid"
for the further technological advance!) got to be a boomerang. More and
more imitations and copies came from low-incomecountries, at which
the importers remained unpunished. Against the manufacturers, they found no
measures to set. This facts led inevitably to unstoppable price-decay,
especially in high-tech, and those levels became to benchmarks even for
patentable products! Yes, even for services! Finally, this fact became the
main-reason for the budget-crises of the high-industrialized states,
since through the price-decay in advanced technological products ("new economy"),
the hope for higher tax-income simultaneously got extinguished with
lower expected economic growth!
An extremely odd and peculiar situation had happened now:
The human society had to pay that price, that had been withheld the betrayed
small inventors and patentees, - no matter in which manner...
The globalization of the new economy was
actually a logical consequence thereof. More and more IT-enterprises
were forced to have produced in low-income countries in order to survive.
Only very few global players - e. g. Microsoft, Intel or IBM - profited from the
odd situation.
Now, there is no possibility
to find a political conception solving these problems. Meanwhile, a
turbo-effect has started. It forced the "state of the art in technology" to an
ultimate level in many branches. The mental resources of engineers and
scientists became wrung and extremely exploited. This fact led in many
industries to an exhaustion of patentability, mainly in the sphere of
informatics and telecommunication. Such a situation never had appeared in
the whole whole history of mankind; and it will not appear a second time
too. For young entrepreneurs often remained only specific technology
niches hardly enabling to survive. A known economic-journalist called it „Tittytainment
for High-intelligent Ones". Today, successful patent-protection is more
difficult than ever. Often, only a low-level protection on copyrights,
trademarks, design, shape, internet-domains and utility models is possible. A
simple example: Presently, a computer calculates 100-times faster, is
essentially smaller and has got hundredfold more memory-capacity than 10 years
ago, nevertheless there is no hardware located, that would show stunning
novelty and sufficiently patentability therefore. The same happens in many
industrial computer-technology applications too, e.g. in telecommunication,
robotics, controlling systems, digital measurement systems, sensor technology,
and - most of all - in consumer electronics. Another example: A wearable
CD-Player, on which basis-technology-development many researchers and engineers
had worked under greatest efforts for years, presently costs hardly the
equivalent price of 2 portions steak in a fine restaurant. Some products, e.g.
digital watches, vanished completely from the market, while the batteries and
the package got twice expensive than the product itself. To consider such
structural economic oddities as a part of a natural evolution and technical
advance, is really the stupidest!
Typical examples
A typical example for „exhaustion of
creative resources" can be seen in the evolution of voice- or music-recorders.
30 years ago, especially in the European area, dozens of companies were able
to make good profits in producing vinyl record players and tape recorders,
and there were innumerable patents protecting their developments. With
the invention of digital CD-, DVD - and DAT-recorders, their prosperity passed
over. Because these technological fields were no longer covered sufficiently
under sustainable patent rights, nearly the entire production went to Far
East. However, since the digital chip-recorder and the MP3-system appeared
on the market (no innovation, rather a „by-product" of large-integrated
semiconductor-technology, countries like Japan no longer are very amused
about this advance. That`s because such a chip-recorder is resulting from an
ultimate „digital amplitude sampling technology", that was already known more
than 20 years ago, and the patents expired long time ago too. Each
signal amplitude sampling-process essentially reduces itself to only one
singular basis-technology, that consists of digital elapse time measurement
and logging the acquired time data into a digital memory. In other words:
its the same as starting and stopping a memory-stopwatch thousands or
millions times a second. Consequently, also each product, wherein digital
sampling method is applied, is basing upon this core-technology. Those
patents describing digital sampling-methods, that already had expired in the
nineties, consequently were "core-patents" btw "key-inventions".
And now, note: the fact, that TIME cannot be measured and stored in
hundredfold different - and IMPROVED(!) or more exact manner - is obvious to
every technically skilled apprentice today! However, this knowledge obviously
did not reach the patent-specialists in electronics- and IT- industries, because
still today they diligently file patent applications to the patent offices, that
contains only multiple time-keeping functions, and nothing more...
Besides: Also each self-organization and life-principle got founded on
the basis-concept (autonomous robots too!) of subjective elapse time
acquisition and time comparison-processes. Please read and study patent
US 4245334 (one of
the most- and best-stolen
patents in the history), and the new patent
US 6172941(Method to Generate
Self-Organizing Processes in Autonomous Mechanisms and Organisms) described
by the author.
However, these mentioned problems - for long times withheld to
the public and the industry - worries the top- experts of the international
patent system (WTO, WIPO, patent-offices) already since 20 years. They
began with intensive brainstorming, but found no ways out. They of course did
not get the glorious idea to discuss the matter with inventors of
core-technologies and the patentees, or to make the situation transparently for
the public. Rather, they favored expansion and inflation of the
patent system. First of all, they allowed (especially the US-Patent Office!) the
patenting of technologies that presupposed the existence of a computer btw an
electronic data processing system. From about 1985 on, they went a step
further, and allowed also patent claims on non-technicistical ideas
realizable on a computer btw. computer-monitor; i.e. basing on pure
mathematical logic and algorithms; and consequently, even simple
business-methods and odd trivialities became allowed to be patented (see
e.g.
One-click-Patent
US5960411). Finally, there was hardly given a "sufficient degree of
invention"; and the patent description and claims often looked like one
egg compared to the other. (Note: 50 years ago, even Konrad Zuse`s
groundbreaking patent application for the first industrial usable COMPUTER had
been rejected through the PTO for the reason of
"insufficient degree of
invention"...!) The result thereof was accumulation of law suits on
patent-invalidity and unending disputes regarding the legitimacy of granted
patent rights. And at last, the international internet-community took notice
of the desolate situation of the patent system. The software designers
negatively affected by the present SW-patent inflation started to organize
themselves and to fight back: see
swpat.ffii.org. Since that happened, fire is at the roof. Presently,
notable experts contemplate the problem; see e. g.: Expert`s opinion of Lutterbeck/Gehring/Horns
or: The Federal Trade
Commission Report(Oct 2003).
The present situation
The present situation regarding patentability and legal-constancy of granted
patent rights in many new technologies is very desolate. For example: the
well-known economic problems of Japan can be attributed to the fact they had
totally trusted in the sustainability of electronics- and IT- innovations
and the thriving new economy. They went wrong in their view, that these branches,
industries and
technological fields would offer true novelties for all times,
and one could protect all developments by filing patents from now
until to all eternities. That these possibilities could become exhausted in
near future, they didn't think even in their worst dreams. 1998, these problems
jumped over from Japan to other so-called " tiger-states ", like South Korea,
Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and even to Indonesia and the
Philippines. Only countries with very low public income, like China or India,
did not suffer under the patentability crisis; in contrary, they exulted.
All mentioned states had fully trusted in HiTec as the only true and reliable
future-perspectives. Eisuke Sakakibara, the known Japanese
finance-expert, said 1998 in a SPIEGEL-interview: „This is no Asian crisis;
no, it is a crisis of the global capitalism". Anyway, it actually
happened in the following years, 2000 - 2003; and it will happen further: It is
the most fundamental crisis, that the world has ever seen in its entire history.
The top-experts of the governments will understand soon the reason why,
and they will see that it will spread to all countries and industries,
and that there will be no method and way out of it.
Another typical situation-model can be seen in East-Germany, but also in
Russia and other former socialistic states. The "New German Countries"
(legal follower of the former GDR) won't be able to reach the western standard
of technology and development, because - despite of trillions EURO subsidies -
the new produced industrial goods cannot become sufficiently protected by
patents, and therefore, no appropriate prices can be achieved on the
world market.
A
philosophically significant consequence arises from this disaster: After a
so-called „Martin's Crash", caused by economy breakdown through excessive
national debts (called according to the German economic-publicist Paul C.
Martin), it would be impossible - in contrary to Germany after
1945! - that a single country or a union of states (like the USA or the EU)
could pull itself out from the swamp only through diligence, creativity and
willingness to innovation; neither presently nor in the future.
What should the authorities for the protection of intellectual property-rights
have had done - decades ago - in the most creative countries; e. g. in the USA
and Europe? They would have had the damned obligation to help those people, who
held extremely important inventions and patents (for example: the origin
patent-rights on sampling-technology) to attain a sufficiently extensive,
incontestable and long-lasting protection of their patent claims. Also for
the consequence-patent-applications and improvements based on the
origin patents! In the interest of the entire mankind, and not
in the national interest of governments, global players, attorneys,
industrial lobbyiests or certain public-promoted research-initiatives!
They would have had to adapt the requirements for intellectual
property rights (IPR) continuously and parallel to the technological
advance and the state of the art in science! This would have been
necessary in all important hardware core technologies, like scanning,
OCR, sequencing, laser-tech, distance-sensors, GPS etc., and
should have
happened already 20 years ago! If it happened today, it would be already too late!
During the 90ies, research initiatives like EUREKA
or its subdivision program PROMETHEUS (development of autonomous vehicle- and
robotics systems), though established with very high financial expenditure (according
to an EUREKA secretary statement, approximately 30 billions Dollar since 1985),
have been yielding very small impacts regarding economy growth or industrial welfare.
They merely showed the ultimate technological ceilings and the inevitable limits
on patentability. One day, all the research-results made between 1980 and 2000
will be moved free of charge to China, India and other Far east countries,
and they will export these results on sell-out price base in same way as in
many other former cases. The GPS navigation unit for vehicles, which everyone
can buy for little money as build-in-kit, respectively the GPS pocket navigation
devices, are classic examples. An additional serious problem is the
decreasing acceptance of HiTec-novelties through the common people. For
example: which driver would be enthusiastic about the board computer snatching
the wheel away from him and steering the car fully autonom along an obstacle
which the driver had seen same time? Guess what the driver would have more fear:
before the defectiveness of the computer or before his own defectiveness? Or
which host awaiting his friends, would be glad to have got equipped all walls
and corners of his house with sensors and CCD video cams? Or which consumer
would like to buy a pair of pants made of „thinking material" ?( A novelty
recently developed by the well-known M.I.T.-University in the United States).
And, plainly considered: would you still keep in touch with any human being if
you know that everyone wears in the first jacket-button a lie detector, and in
the second button a chip for speech recording and playback ?
Inevitable results
Inevitable result of the disaster: Unending
decay of human standards, incessant loss of prestige in technical jobs,
frustrated students, inhuman distress in everyday`s life, panic and depressions,
alienation in families and groups, insecurity, suicides, psycho-terror and
mobbing at the rarer nascent job-places, increasing unemployment-rates even in
HiTec industries, devaluation of intellectual activities in general (in some
branches decreasing lower than level of errand-bicyclists or cleaning women).
Many university-graduates has got no chance on success in life. Some TV-media
glorifies so-called economy experts having created new visions and jobs for „young,
creative and progressive entrepreneurs". In practice, such examples are:
academics with diploma(!) - as Rikscha-driver, pizza-men or „dog-servicers". In
an Austrian TV-program, a high-qualified engineer became glorified to be a „shining
example" in creating a new job: by digging out rubbles from the ruins of old
farmhouses and selling them to „freaks of antique construction-material".
Questioned, whether he could make his life thereof, he answered: at the moment
he is still depending upon social welfare payments; but the national employment
office would have shown understanding and appreciation...
But the poorest
guys are the innumerable small entrepreneurs, single inventors and patentees;
trusting on the effectiveness and efficiency of the patent system years-by-years;
in brainstorming, in investing their hard-saved money, in raising capital from
banks, in quitting well-paid jobs and in founding own firms and companies. Many
high-qualified and creative people today must live upon welfare-payments and
have helplessly to watch the smart manners how they got lied, stolen and
deceived; and the way the importers earn enough money with their ideas and
concepts. And some extremely poor guys are sent from national employment offices
to retraining-courses to get new skills and „educations" - exactly in those
technologies, that they had invented or patented twenty years ago by themselves...
For better
understanding the chaotic situation, see also the following links:
1975: HOW THE SOFTWARE
PATENT DISASTER BEGAN