Tag: 2011 Leahy–Smith America Invents Act

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Patents in the Geriatric Ward: The Slow Death of American Innovation

We all know that in certain industries, the lifespan of a design is quite short.

Fashion & Graphic Design: 1 to 5 years
Consumer Electronics: 2 to 5 years
Industrial & Household Goods: 5 to 25+ years
With the US 2–3 years (and as experienced currently by some 1200 days) of wait for a design patent for a single shape, it seems that the USPTO is working for the museum industry.

It takes YEARS  to examine and eventually issue (or decline) a patent in the US. That’s the very reason we have a program accelerating examinations for older inventors. The USPTO makes the effort, so the US inventor can receive the “patent,” or rather the badge of honor, before his/her death.
I think we should have special ceremony to deliver patents to the geriatrics’ wards of hospitals and nursing homes.

Unfortunately, the continuous effort of the BIG $ Fifth Column (Aka Supreme Court) working tirelessly to undermine the patents in the US doesn’t make the patent a valuable bequest. The popular opinion among inventors it is a liability.
Since the average age of US inventors is 47years old and growing, there is hope that most of them are young enough not to need the geriatric patients’ acceleration program.

In 99 countries. You can have “Industrial design registration” applied for and done in a matter of literally a few days.
Just upload some drawings to the WIPO website, pay the fee, and don’t worry about the next 5–25 years. YOU ARE DONE.

The additional eye-opening miracle of the “Hague agreement” for the user from the God-forbidden US periphery of our planet is the fact that you can register up to 100 designs in one single application.

The cost is not US $1040 for a single design. It is on average $79 per design in each of the 99 countries, or less depending on what country, countries you register in.
And you can be done with it in a day.
5 years ago, 6 designs registered in the EU, plus Norway, Switzerland, and Great Britain (30 countries) cost 1475 Swiss Francs. Today, the WIPO costs are still the same, while the USPTO has raised its fees twice.

Under a heavy burden of examining what others using common sense reduced to simple registration of priority and left examinations for better times (Examination by Competitors – No PTAB needed) when the thing actually makes money, in the US we raised fees twice in October 2020 and, most significantly, in January 2025. The January 2025 update implemented the most comprehensive changes across the board, adjusting over 430 patent fees and introducing numerous new surcharges.
•Design Patents: Filing and issue fees saw increases of up to 27% and 76%, respectively.
•Continuing Applications: New, hefty fees were introduced for continuing applications filed more than six ($2,700) or nine ($4,000)) years after the earliest benefit date.
•Simply, they are trying to kill the thing

Today
The Hague Agreement, fully implemented in the US (not converted into the “US Design patent as it is done today), is the common-sense dream of so many US inventors.


Just register the damn thing to have priority and worry about more then formal examinations when really needed, and your contraption makes real money. Just do that and 98% of USPTO work will disappear overnight since the 2% represents the number of successful designs. Plus, nobody wants to deal with the 5th column / Supreme Court legal inventions trying to separate the “ORNAMENTAL” element of the US DESIGN PATENT from the UTILITY side. And denying it because this or that single line has a practical function.
It reminds me of the medieval discussions about the number of Devils you can fit on the tip of a sewing needle. The US Supreme Court clearly tries to make it impossible to have a design patent in the US, like they did by introducing their “Judicial exceptions”(Ban on patents in certain technologies by pure accident matching the interest of the BIG TECH) and barring injunctions in patent cases.

It is just common sense to have the flow of new ideas at as little cost as possible. At least our ancestors had some.
Much less work for the USPTO, freeing numbers of examiners to work on utility patents. Instead of issuing patents to inventors already occupying cemetery lots.

Of course, this is just a dream. It is not going to happen on this side of our planet. BIG TECH is afraid of competition. Because the mice in their garages usually have better ideas than the BIG$. Who needs a competition when the money is flowing?
Not the billionaires.
Today. The six designs registered for $1475 with WIPO in 30 countries in the US alone cost $6240. Great way to promote inventions!!!

I wonder how some of us still have the illusion that US and US inventions will dominate the world in the not so distant future. The Supreme Court bans patents in the form of “judicial exceptions”. Legislations, like PERA and PREVAIL trying to preserve PTAB and make ‘JUDICIAL EXCEPTION” as part of the official laws leaves no doubt.

PS

All Independent US inventors appreciate the current director’s, John A. Squires’ effort to make the system at least little bit inventor-friendly, but we know that after he is gone, the corruption of our political system will not allow the US patent policy to align with the real interests of our country, and only few have resources and contacts to offers free vacations and RVs to the legal minds….

————————-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Would you use Ring Binder, or Ring-less binder?

Have you ever received a dirty look from a fellow you just handed a collection of papers kept together with staples?

The wire not flattened enough by the stapler hurts.
Bloody fingers do not add to the positive impression of your offer.
It seems stingy. Didn’t it?
But being serious, how many of us were forced to use ring binders as early as in school and hate the brick-like contraptions? The rings are always in the way of your hand reaching the opposite page and the spine. The spine sticks out like a mountain, blocking the view and taking up your storage space even if it’s half empty.

 You may collect the full display of negative emotions toward Ring Binders here and there when searching the internet and blogs dealing with organizers. Teachers and students share their solutions to avoid and replace the infamous Ring-binder. They discuss: the disc-bound notebooks, Chicago screws, metal prongs, and a variety of other solutions designed with one goal in mind: to make it FLAT.

The rest of the adult population seems to have given up their hopes, seeing no solutions. 

But there is a Ring-less binder developed in Chicago. It contains no metal parts of any sort visible among competing solutions. Cut from a flat sheet of reinforced paper. No sticking out pieces, rings, or prongs. Nothing can hurt your fingers, and it binds any number of leaflets effortlessly. One universal size replaces the usual selection of ring binders designed for a specific number of sheets.

Ringless Binder with two spines
Ringless Binder with two spines and 350 leaflets capacity

When I asked the designer why he spent his time designing solutions for the office supply industry when every CEO is eyeing electronic files and computers as replacements for paper documents, he said:

Spineless Binder for two or three hole punched leaflets.
Spineless Binder for two or three hole punched leaflets.

A piece of paper can last for hundreds of years without a power source. Can you find a similar hard drive? You print your family pictures to preserve them on paper. How many have you lost when kept in memory of your electronic devices? Of course, electronics have their role, but they are not solutions for everything.

We all use tons of paper. We need a hard copy here and there. Where would I keep my records when all my hard drives for the last ten years are gone? I do not have to worry about compatibility or power supply with paper. Plus the cost. It is just a fraction of a penny per page.

 

 

There is a future for paper, but not everybody see it. Certainly, it is time to offer something better than the museum quality 133year-old contraption (ring binder) created at the time the first steam engines entered the world. For those paying attention, it is clear that the public is searching for a replacement.

The big behemoths of industry in the US have no interest in upending their already existing sales and offer a simpler, less expensive, and very competitive to their offer product. As you probably know, competition in the US died under several decisions of the Supreme Court promoting the interest of Big tech. Infringers who have no interest in promoting competition to their well-established offerings. That is why many new products already available elsewhere will never have any chance of showing up in the US. As an inventor, I have bigger hopes in the EU since there is no anti-patent Big Tech lobby and no PTAB invalidating 84% of all nationally issued patents. In the US, small companies are quickly extinguished by big tech moneyed competition and domestic or Chinese infringers. At a certain point, when you see all roadblocks in the US, you start to think: What we inventors do here is out of desperation, not hope, knowing full well that we should look to have a startup and hope to survive elsewhere outside the US.

IMG 20241010 142715bI know well the plight of independent inventors in the US.

The Supreme Court has made several inventions: “Patent ineligible” in direct defiance of Congress-made statutes and the U.S. Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. Plus, there is PTAB. Established by the 2011 Leahy Smith American invention Act, patent review board is known as the “Patents Killer squad.” PTAB is invalidating 84% of issued USPTO patents at the request of the competition. For people looking for more info, you should start searching for information about “Efficient Infringement,” describing how big US and Chinese corporations kill competitive startups in the US.

Suppose you wonder why you can have patents for certain types of technology abroad when, in the US, it is forbidden. I think the answer is clear. Big Tech doesn’t want competition.

We wish the designers good luck finding their future – but Abroad?

Do we wonder why 50% of foreign fillers in the German Patent office are from the US? With the EU unitary patent court and a pan-European patent on the horizon, the outflow from the US may only increase.

Do you need more information?    There is a movie, INNOVATION RACE, explaining the basics.  How China is winning the race we are losing.

It would help if you considered it your patriotic duty to support HR 5874, Senator Massie’s RALIA bill, by tossing away all the misgivings of the Supreme Court into the US patent law and creating conditions to restore US competitiveness.

According to the Supreme Court Teft is legal in the US

Sorry, I should write about the Fellow with a bleeding finger handling my paperwork, but… More blood comes from other directions.

J.T.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Patent Stolen from MOLLY METZ: INVENTOR OF THE REVOLUTION ROPE

openclipart.org

MOLLY METZ: INVENTOR OF THE REVOLUTION ROPE

Molly Metz wasn’t named “Queen of the Rope” for nothing. She holds 5-world championships, is the reigning National Champion in a 30+-year-old division and is known in the industry for jumping ten consecutive minutes of double-under. She is the only jump-roper to have had a patent…until the PTAB took it away.

 

At age seven, Molly started her jump-roping career. Only one year later, she had traveled worldwide for jump-rope competitions. Three years later, at the age of ten, she won her first world championship. In 2002, she won her fifth world championship.

Molly knew her passion was jump-roping. So much so that she was inspired to help kids learn it, practice it, and then teach it. She wanted to spread her passion to everyone. In 2006, Molly started her business, JumpNrope, with the intent to work with kids. Molly trained kids through her business, at recreation centers and developed after-school programs for kids. Throughout her years, she educated and employed over twenty-five jump roping coaches at different locations

In 2007, Molly was in a car accident, where she suffered major injuries. After healing and getting back into her jump-roping lifestyle, she learned that the old jump ropes could not keep up with her and move efficiently with her injury. So, she decided to take her profession into her own hands, and she began to design different styles to improve the versatility of the jump rope.

Molly filed for the patent in 2009; The Revolution Rope or “R1 Speed Rope”. This design includes a handle with a pivoting-eye-technology feature that reduced the degree of the wire in the handle to create optimal rotation of the rope, without it being directly linked to the handle. This design makes it the most precise speed and power jump rope in the world.

 

A standard jump rope consists of a rope and a handle. The bottom of the handle contains a hole, where the rope is directly inserted and then somehow fastened to the handle. The rope rotates without being tangled but is limited to the movement of the handle. Molly’s design consists of a rope, a handle, and pivoting eye technology. This feature is a key part of the design and a complete distinction between Molly’s design and the standard design. This extra component has attached to the handle. The rope is then inserted through the pivoting eye technology and fastened. It allows the wire to follow the hand’s movement directly with a decreased degree of range, enabling speed and power and decreasing friction.

Molly was granted patent U.S. 7,789,809 in 2010, but that wasn’t the end of Molly’s entrepreneurial ventures. She began manufacturing and selling her product online through her business. Later in 2010, Molly was introduced to CrossFit (a high-intensity fitness program incorporating elements from several sports and types of exercise). Molly fell in love with the CrossFit community and quickly discovered the need for jump-rope education in the CrossFit world. In 2012 she opened her gym, totaling 10,000sqft. Half of the gym is devoted to CrossFit, and the other half to jump rope programs. Molly developed a progression-based seminar for CrossFit athletes so that they could learn how to be proficient in the movement. Molly has conducted over 800 jump rope seminars worldwide in CrossFit gyms

Within the same year, her patents were awarded, and the infringers were already manufacturing and selling her product in countries like China and India. Once they became mass-produced, she realized other cross-fit companies were buying her design from China and India. In an effort to license her technology in the US, she reached out to a large fitness company, known as ROGUE Fitness. Without hesitation, ROGUE Fitness took her design and began importing it from China and distributing and it without a license; Making an estimated yearly profit of tens of millions of dollars.

Quickly losing hope due to the financial and emotional burden, Molly almost chose not to fight. She saw the millions of dollars she was losing. She had just devoted her time and money to her new gym (costing $280,000) and could not develop the resources to fight it, as she had little success licensing the product due to its mass distribution already. In 2015 she closed her kids’ programs and CrossFit programs. But it was not long before her fighter instinct kicked in. She acquired an attorney and together they worked effortlessly to shut down overseas countries and earn licensing agreements with small CrossFit companies. Molly believed she could finally see the light at the end of the tunnel; She brought the fight to ROGUE Fitness. After all, she was awarded the patent, they are using her technology illegally, the patent system will protect them, right?

The constitution would agree, but the broken US Patent System and the corrupt Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had another decision in mind. The PTAB was created in 2011 via the America Invents Act (AIA). Which was a radical overhaul of the U.S. patent system that had been the gold standard for over 200 years. Big tech lobbyists pushed this bill through and then convinced President Obama to appoint Michelle Lee from Google to run the USPTO. In the office, Lee wrote the rules and hired the “judges” who went on to find “errors” in the patents that Google and other Silicon Valley tech giants were accused of infringing. Molly is one of the thousands of other inventors that have had their patents invalidated by the U.S. Patent Office –which has invalidated 84% of the patents they have reviewed under the AIA.

ROGUE Fitness used the bought-off patent system in their favor. In response to Molly’s infringement suit, ROGUE Fitness sought invalidation of her patents. They pushed the battle from the Ohio courts to Washington DC’s PTAB, where the administrative court, filled with three government employees, who are lawyers and not technical experts, would decide the fate of her patents.

Molly was awarded her first patent by the USPTO in 2010 and another in 2012. It was at this time that the patent examiner believed that Molly’s invention of the Revolution Rope was indeed patentable. The patent examiner is someone who has experience and knowledge in the technology in which they are granting the patent. Granting a patent only occurs after rigorous examination. Molly’s patents endured 6 years of examination by three different examiners with several decades of cumulative experience. At one point during the examination, they rejected Molly’s application, holding that it was obvious to combine an older jump rope handle with a rotating bearing with another that had a swivel joint. Molly stipulated to change the wording. After doing so, the examiners were persuaded that her patent met the requirements, therefore granting the patent.

Molly, unfortunately, fell victim to the PTAB – AKA the “death squad.”

ROGUE filed a petition asking the PTAB to revoke her patents. The PTAB proceeded to invalidate her patents and overturn the examiner. The PTAB ruled that it was obvious to combine older styles of jump rope handles from 1978 and 1979.

PTAB prohibits most evidence, live testimony, cross-examination, and generally short circuits due process. The so-called trial took place in less than an hour (versus in a real court, the trial would take 1-2 weeks). This unjust court doesn’t even allow physical evidence which would have clearly shown the innovation that Molly created and patented. But, with these “judges” only appearing via remote video and not examining the evidence, there is no way to even attempt a just response.

Below is the 1978 technology that was considered by the USPTO examiners who determined that Molly’s design was a patentable improvement in 2010. The PTAB cited the exact same prior art in revoking her patents for obviousness in 2019.

No one is as experienced as Molly is in the field of jump-roping. Her experience, her resume, and her knowledge in the field, led her to develop a jump rope handle that increased speed, power, and reduced friction. This design was never introduced into the market before, nor even thought of by others within the industry. The market success of this jump rope handle goes to show just how non-obvious it was. Yet, the unqualified PTAB “judges” took it into their own, unqualified, inexperienced, ignorant hands to kill another startup, another inventor, and another American Dream.

ROGUE Fitness and other companies are still manufacturing and selling Molly’s design. So much so, that when you search “Molly Metz Jump Rope” ROGUE Fitness is the first to show.

Fortunately, Molly did not give up her company. Molly still manufactures and sells her jump ropes in the US -USA made and sold. She also still hosts seminars and coaches.

You can view her seminars and purchase directly from Molly at her website JumpNrope

By |   April 7th, 2022   | Articles, Featured Inventor, News

Related Posts from US Inventors

        
Posted on by — Leave a comment

Copyright violation = Crime. Patent theft = Civil Violation?

Have you noticed the warnings showing up sometimes on the screen of a bootlegged movie? $250,000 financial penalty and the promise of criminal persecution.

Same time shopping on the Amazon (The jungle river of fakes) you have a wide selection of sometimes obvious sometimes not fakes pushed by unscrupulous Chinese sellers as well as the Amazon management. You do not see the warning screen that receiving stolen (Intellectual) property will put you in legal jeopardy.  Instead of the $250k unexpected financial incentive to abandon the Amazon web catalog you are lulled in by the promise of great savings (and hidden but unexpected health expenses when you buy faked in China Bike helmet or Car child seat.) Bootlegged by Amazon Copy of Hermes bag gives you the appearance of luxury for a few bucks. You will be arrested for distributing faked goods on the street corner in any US city but Amazon is doing it officially in a full view.

America is doing great business transferring wealth to China in exchange for fakes and oversized bank accounts of Amazon’s owner. One person’s interest against the whole nation.

Where are the great American Designers, Inventors? Are they among the 50% of all applicants submitting their invention from the US to the German Patent office? No wonder. There are so many inventions you can not get patented in the US thanks to the infinite wisdom of the Supreme Court in competition with Congress injecting “Judicial exceptions” into the US  Patent Statues.

The Internet is full of people bragging about theft. Intellectual property theft supposedly should make the heroes.

They took the property from an evil entity. (You) Entity encroaching on their rights to possess everything for free, even other people’s property. New kind of Robin Hoods? No. They are Corporate Theft Heroes. sponsored and paid for by Amazons and Googles.

They stole somebody’s fruits of labor. Hard work and sometimes the last dime taken from the family budget. Work published in hopes to earn a buck. Possibly to pay for kids’ college expenses. Or inventor retirement so deserved after half of a century of hard work here and there.

No question as an Inventor you are a modern Outlaw in the US. To be exact according to the 2015 Supreme Court ruling inventors DO NOT OWN FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR. Their sweat and labor, Their expenses belong to the government. Invention? It is merely Government Franchise.  Only slave labor doesn’t belong to him/her.

So In FACT according to Supreme Court, YOU ARE A SLAVE.

The Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom follows the great example of philosophers who gave rise to the 20-century Soviet empire where everything was a “Government franchise”

According to this philosophy, your rights as individual means nothing when comes to the greater good of a bigger entity.  Nation, The Government. (eBay). Supreme Court strives to have the perfect realization of totalitarianism. Exactly like in the Communist country. I’ve lived through it myself. You are property of the State.

No wonder in the opinion of the 6 riders of Apocalypse women have no right to their own bodies.

The plight is shared by everyone in our country. If you want at least one positive change please call your congressman to support

 Congressman Massie Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act, H.R. 5874

Donate to U.S. inventor organization working on restoring U.S. patent laws.

——————————————————————-

One of my websites shows a page with information about the existence of an invention. After a year or so of continuous (unsuccessful) internet attacks, the subscriber list grows exponentially consisting mainly of e-mails associated with Chinese websites like Alibaba, Ali Express, etc. Ready to steal and copy the product at the first sight of any useful information. Lately, I received an offer from a Chinese company to help them “DEVELOP THEIR PRODUCT” Obvious attempt to gain access to know-how. You submit them the proposal, and drawings and they are telling you: We get back to you…..

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Congressman Massie Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act, H.R. 5874

Finally, U.S. Inventors see a real attempt to right the wrong caused by the 2011 Leahy–Smith America Invents Act.

US SUPREME COURTAccording to the latest “findings’ by the U.S. Supreme Court, private property (patents) is not personal property but “GOVERNMENT FRANCHISE.”

 It means that your “fruits of labor” belong to the Government and the Government allows you to use them. Legally, you, the laborer (Inventor), are not a person in its rights but the “chattel” owned by the Government. 

Logically, In simple English translation, according to the Supreme Court, the laborer (Inventor) is a “SLAVE.”

You will not find a better description of the system we used to see behind the “IRON CURTAIN.”

COMMUNISM is the name of the system I know from my experience and forced to leave. Everything there was a “Government franchise” like the SUPREME interprets. Suppose we intend to limit beneficiaries of any economic system to just a few. Let’s name it Communist Party or Big Tech. The outcome is always the same. 

Astonishing is the fact that our right-leaning U.S. Supreme Court, in its relentless madness trying to serve the BIG TECH, comes to such a conclusion. The 2011 Leahy–Smith America Invents Act was a significant step in eliminating Inventor Rights. It follows a long list of similar actions, for example, where eBay can disregard other people’s property rights and use it at will. From invention ownership, it is just a tiny step for Supreme Court to take away your other private property rights. Civil forfeiture law is an example of our reality. It exists in direct defiance of the U.S. constitution. Supreme Court “legislating” from the bench puts itself in direct competition with U.S. congress, with no hesitation encroaching on Congress domain, without hesitation misinterpreting the statutes to apply its homegrown philosophy. Everything in the name of limiting the size of the Government (potentially acting in the name of constituents ) and allowing the big enterprise to exist with no competition. And this is the GOAL—unrestricted Domination. Today Russia or Google or Facebook, there is no difference in their ambitions. The only difference is their tools. 

Congressman Massie Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act, H.R. 5874, sponsored already by a number of legislators, brings back the patent laws for 200 years, making the U.S. patent law worldwide gold standard.

Signing 2011 AIAIn its current state, it is Not a Gold Standard anymore. The 2011 American Invent Act, among others introduced in our reality PTAB (known as Patent Death Squad), USPTO division examining issued patents and INVALIDATING 84% of them. The cost of legally defending a patent upfront of just this “tribunal” is estimated at $450,000 a pop, with unlimited challenges designed to finish off financially the patent holder.

Big tech with Deep Pockets doesn’t need any Patent protection relying on its Market domination. The current system allows them to squash easily any garage-based inventor and steals his invention. With unaffordable for Inventors/startups, legal costs involved, “Efficient Infringement” become standard practice.

In short, as of today is safer not to apply for a patent in the U.S. since this document is not giving you any real rights or protection. You are exposing yourself to financial ruin by publishing your work since every valuable invention will be successfully challenged by moneyed competition. There is simply no upside for the Inventor. Even if USPTO denies you a patent, 18 months from the application submission date, they still publish your work for the world to see and use. 

Do you want the U.S. to remain a hub of innovation? China is currently modifying its patent laws to match the model of the German law. They are already dominating in certain areas and competing with the U.S.; they use the PTAB fully to their advantage. Support H.R. 5874

Donate to U.S. inventor organization working on restoring U.S. patent laws.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Warren Tuttle new book “Inventor confidential” – Inventors BEWARE!

“Inventor Confidential” by Warren Tuttle.
I recently received a new book to expand my understanding of the Intellectual Property landscape in the U.S.
After reading and initially finding the book light and informative, I stumbled on a few sentences, suddenly changing my opinion about the book and its author.
I think, one more in a long line of pretenders clinging to public support but representing the opposite interest. Trojan horses or wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Idea theftAre you an Inventor? Beware
After reading this book, I see two points that need attention.

1) Inventor commission based on NET company profits?

2) Patent Assignment?    WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Both create a disadvantage for the Inventor.
The .NET?
After subtracting all expenses, I would not be surprised if the inventor owes money to the licensee.
Talk of “ethical corporations” is not worth the paper it is written on.
There is a paper with numbers, and God only knows what is behind all listed “expenses.”
2) Forced Assignment?
It shows the true face represented by the author corporations.
In short, the Inventor is losing their invention in exchange, not for payment but for a promise.
“Assignment” creates more problems than it solves. For example, as described in this book, the author suggests that the inventor may take advantage of the assignee’s purchasing power by buying the product from the manufacturer.
Really? After the “Assignment,” the Inventor cannot do that without licensing the patent from the new owner. All the possible venues to bring in additional licensees are gone.
In essence, the author is telling us that it is normal when you rent a house to expect the owner to sign the title of the house to the renter.

The author tells us that inventors normally expect to give up their ownership in exchange for a promise, not a payment. Of course, it appears as “Lifetime Brands.” requests an “assignment.” every time from the vulnerable Inventor, but this is an expression of their arrogance and lack of consideration for The Inventor.
Even a quick internet search of the term “assignment.” results in the warnings that the Inventor may lose their rights to the invention forever.
Signing up for the “assignment” is not the most fantastic advice!!
Also surprising is that so well-informed authors lack knowledge about the PTAB.

The official number of invalidated patents revealed by PTAB (USPTO-Patent Trial and Appeal Board) during the 2019 USPTO Invention con is not 60% but 84%. Virtually any patent that proved valuable would be revoked, so Big Tech and Chinese corporations would not worry about competition in the U.S.

The talk about the author Warren Tuttle being outside counsel for a bunch of corporations, unfortunately, after reading this book, appears to be just a smokescreen since there cannot be the slightest doubt about genuine interest behind it. The text of the book shows that he is not outside the independent counsel, but the whole arrangement is to create an appearance… when he represents the corporation’s interest.
Wolf in sheep’s clothing is probably the best description.
The book is well written and light, but I cannot recommend it or the author when it comes to the essence. The fact that he is involved with the United Inventors Association, sponsored by USPTO and financed by Google, is undoubtedly helpful to his business, but when it comes to Real Inventor’s representation? There are quite a few quasi-pro-patent organizations in the U.S., for example the Electronic Frontier Foundation talking in derogatory terms about patents while at the same time fighting for your consumer rights, but this is a separate and quite extensive subject.

(PS The scale of the problem created by PTAB illustrates that one Chinese Corporation, Huawei used the PTAB more than 700 times to invalidate United States Patent Office-issued patents.)

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted on by — 1 Comment

The end of the Reign of the Ring Binder. Ringless Binder is born.

 Friedrich Soennecken inventor of the Ring Binder should certainly wake up from his well-deserved final rest knowing that finally there is something/ somebody good enough to challenge his invention “Ring-binder” 133 years long reign in every office on the earth.

  • To my surprise, the new solution comes not in form of a complicated mechanism but as a single, flexible sheet of material cut a certain way. All rings and metal parts are eliminated. And it works.
  • There is no sticking-out spine always taking the same space on the shelf even if empty. The New Ring-Less Binder is flexible and quite pleasant to handle, the same as the rest of this new family serving the same binding functions.

  • The Challenger says he has ambitions to improve range of products currently on the market. Eliminating the Rings, Spines, prongs etc. His solution simply is simpler. It means less expensive. It means Not welcomed by competition.

This is not the first time the Reign of the Ring is challenged. There are numerous challenges to its rule sponsored by many companies. None of them were successful, lingering on the fringe of the Office market mostly due to the fact that they introduce their own sets of problems.

In the U.S. there is an additional problem with the office market dominated by very few big players. Players with immense financial resources not taking any risks when it comes to the introduction of a product competing with their well-established offerings.

To make things more palatable for inventors the 2011 Leahy–Smith America Invents Act effectively makes U.S. patents worthless and unenforceable by a small player not having financial resources to finance legal challenges.

  • Leahy-Smith’s act (2011 America Invention act) sponsored by Big Tech effectively enables “Efficient Infringement” practiced by already established companies barring entry to the market for eventual startups/competition. Introduced by this legislation PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board ) enjoys well-deserved fame as a ” Patent killing squad” invalidating by own admission 84% of all challenged patents. The effect: Invention exodus to more promising lands already caught politicians’ attention in Congress. 
  • So far, there is no real action to fix things except proposed bills released with misleading titles and preambles and opposite in effect, the rest of the text. Under “Save The Inventor”false flag trying to cement the current situation, benefiting no one except the BIG TECH.

Ring binder
Empty Ring binders. Please notice the space needed to store even the empty one.

If we add the long string of anti-patent rulings by the US Supreme Court, there is no wonder why the US public do not see the latest fruits of technological development we can easily spot in other countries. To learn more about the plight of US inventors please check https://innovationgadfly.com/ & https://usinventor.org/

5 Ring-Less binders by Alfac.us
Ring vs Ring-less
compare Ring-Less with empty Ring binder


Home

Calendar