(Jim Morrison)                                                  German translation see: 

Beautiful friend...
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end.



               The Patent Overshoot Day 
- I -

1.  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.

On the agenda in Davos 2000 was a paper entitled, "Should we patent progress?" At last, something has begun to dawn in some folks' minds!

Do we need stronger protection?
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 or rendered 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 with patents - 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.

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.

  Example:   Austrian Patent Office:      Granted Patents,  Issued   1970 -  2001

                                    1970               1980             1990             1995            1996           1997           1998          1999          2000


  Applications                     11.786              6.493         2.694            2.188           2.357          2.306          2.307         2.369         2.293


   Published                          8.850               5.734            2.317            1.440           1.554          1.418          1.491        1.355         1.401


   Granted Patents               8.761               5.972            2.175            1.777          1.481          1.287          1.355         1.328         1.217

  Source:  Austrian Center of Statistics

     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:      (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 inventorsIf, 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 technologieswithout 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

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-income countries, 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 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:
->   THE END OF DISCOVERY   Author: Russell Stannard

      If you have any question, please send your e-mail to:

           you are the visitor Nr :