Saturday, December 31, 2016
Friday, December 30, 2016
That Webster?
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
Noah Webster, of dictionary fame, was one of the first to write a bill for the American patent system. On Apri116, 1789, he wrote what he called a federal copyright bill, a combined patent and copyright bill. A committee was appointed to draft a general law. On June 23, 1789, House Bill 10, a printed document of 11 pages, was presented as a combined federal copyright and patent bill. After much argument, this bill was defeated.
The Copyright Act of 1831 was the first major statutory revision of U.S. copyright law, a result of intensive lobbying by Noah Webster and his agents in Congress. Webster also played a critical role lobbying individual states throughout the country during the 1780s to pass the first American copyright laws, which were expected to have distinct nationalistic implications for the infant nation. <from wikipedia>.
Noah Webster, of dictionary fame, was one of the first to write a bill for the American patent system. On Apri116, 1789, he wrote what he called a federal copyright bill, a combined patent and copyright bill. A committee was appointed to draft a general law. On June 23, 1789, House Bill 10, a printed document of 11 pages, was presented as a combined federal copyright and patent bill. After much argument, this bill was defeated.
The Copyright Act of 1831 was the first major statutory revision of U.S. copyright law, a result of intensive lobbying by Noah Webster and his agents in Congress. Webster also played a critical role lobbying individual states throughout the country during the 1780s to pass the first American copyright laws, which were expected to have distinct nationalistic implications for the infant nation. <from wikipedia>.
Thursday, December 29, 2016
There are Abortions in Art, as Well as in Nature...
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE USEFUL ARTS, AND MIRROR OF THE PATENT OFFICE, V. 1, No. 1 (1828), p. 15.
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE USEFUL ARTS, AND MIRROR OF THE PATENT OFFICE, V. 1, No. 1 (1828), p. 15.
The multitude of useless structures found in the office, do not lessen its value as a whole. For men of science know full well, that there are abortions in art, as well as in nature; since it is not every effort of the one, or of the other, that is ultimately to succeed: and moreover, that the genuine operations of both, are not unfrequently aided by these abortions.
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Inventors and the Bible (Part One: Adam and Eve)
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
I am not a very religious person, but a little blurb about Adam and & Eve caught my eye as I read the 1888 book, Curiosities of the US Patent Office, written by then-examiner William Raymond. Even today, this dusty, worm-holed filed book remains quite quotable.
On page 102, Raymond quotes from Genesis 3:6 (emphasis added):
In a future post, we will look to the inventiveness of Noah.
I am not a very religious person, but a little blurb about Adam and & Eve caught my eye as I read the 1888 book, Curiosities of the US Patent Office, written by then-examiner William Raymond. Even today, this dusty, worm-holed filed book remains quite quotable.
On page 102, Raymond quotes from Genesis 3:6 (emphasis added):
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.Raymond postulates (emphasis in original):
For them to have sewed, without using the needle, would have been utterly impossible, therefore they must have invented one; but whether from a thorn or a fish bone, is a matter of conjecture.While Raymond says it is an open question as to whether the credit for inventing the needle should go to Adam or Eve; Raymond misses that maybe Adam and Eve were not only the first inventors, but also the first joint inventors.
In a future post, we will look to the inventiveness of Noah.
The Increasing Complexity of the Arts and Sciences
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
The difficulties" of the judges in comprehending the facts involved in patent cases, which have been cumulative with the increasing complexity of the Arts and Sciences, have somewhat weakened the authority of their opinions.
E. J. STODDARD (member of the Detroit bar).
May 1, 1920.
The difficulties" of the judges in comprehending the facts involved in patent cases, which have been cumulative with the increasing complexity of the Arts and Sciences, have somewhat weakened the authority of their opinions.
E. J. STODDARD (member of the Detroit bar).
May 1, 1920.
Friday, December 23, 2016
Another Early Assessment of Patents
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE USEFUL ARTS, AND MIRROR OF THE PATENT OFFICE, V. 1, No. 1, p. 3 (1828):
Henry Clay (1777-1852)
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE USEFUL ARTS, AND MIRROR OF THE PATENT OFFICE, V. 1, No. 1, p. 3 (1828):
The Patent Office is a valuable repository, the contents of which, though accessible to all, are known to but few. By placing them within the convenient reach of every one, the Patentee, the man of inventive genius, (to whom it is important to possess accurate knowledge of abortive as well as successful essays,) and the community at large, may be benefited.
Henry Clay (1777-1852)
Thursday, December 22, 2016
An Early Assessment of the Value of Patents
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE USEFUL ARTS, AND MIRROR OF THE PATENT OFFICE, V. 1, No. 1 (1828), pp. 5-6:
A very small portion, of the Whole number of intelligent men in the United States, will ever visit the Patent Office; and very few, even of those who do visit it, have either time or opportunity to examine the principles and adaptations of the many inventions there deposited. The public are not sensible how large this deposit has become. Often have‘ we seen those, who visited it for the first time, astonished at the amount and variety of the models, and contrivances, and purposes, of ingenious minds, which have already manifested themselves in this infant country; and yet it is well known, that for a portion of the inventions, no models are deposited, because none are required by law. So great, however, is this accumulation of models, in less than forty years from the first law of Congress on this subject, that one entire story, in the General Post Office, is needed for their proper classification and display. Nor can we conceive what it may be in ages to come. Already it looks more like the work of ages, than like the offspring of a day.
By way of general remark, we might, perhaps, throw these inventions into three classes.
That some of them are useless, is obvious——say, One-third of them come within this description.
Another third of them are merely exhibitions of ingenuity, useful only, as displays of the inventive faculties of our countrymen.
The remaining third, are either directly applicable to some practical purpose; or, they are such specimens of mechanical construction, as cannot fail to be useful for other purposes, than those for which they were designed by their inventors.
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE USEFUL ARTS, AND MIRROR OF THE PATENT OFFICE, V. 1, No. 1 (1828), pp. 5-6:
A very small portion, of the Whole number of intelligent men in the United States, will ever visit the Patent Office; and very few, even of those who do visit it, have either time or opportunity to examine the principles and adaptations of the many inventions there deposited. The public are not sensible how large this deposit has become. Often have‘ we seen those, who visited it for the first time, astonished at the amount and variety of the models, and contrivances, and purposes, of ingenious minds, which have already manifested themselves in this infant country; and yet it is well known, that for a portion of the inventions, no models are deposited, because none are required by law. So great, however, is this accumulation of models, in less than forty years from the first law of Congress on this subject, that one entire story, in the General Post Office, is needed for their proper classification and display. Nor can we conceive what it may be in ages to come. Already it looks more like the work of ages, than like the offspring of a day.
By way of general remark, we might, perhaps, throw these inventions into three classes.
That some of them are useless, is obvious——say, One-third of them come within this description.
Another third of them are merely exhibitions of ingenuity, useful only, as displays of the inventive faculties of our countrymen.
The remaining third, are either directly applicable to some practical purpose; or, they are such specimens of mechanical construction, as cannot fail to be useful for other purposes, than those for which they were designed by their inventors.
Friday, December 9, 2016
Doubting the Patent System.
by Steve Reiss of www.reisspatents.com
William Raymond, former patent examiner... 1888.
"There are some persons who will assert that the American patent system tends to throw working men out of employment, as well as reducing in a considerable degree their wages. "
William Raymond, former patent examiner... 1888.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Our Patent Office...
by Steve Reiss (stevenreiss@scienbizippc.com)
Our Patent Office Practice is still incomparably the best in the world. Let us keep it so.
E. J. STODDARD (member of the Detroit bar).
May 1, 1920.
Our Patent Office Practice is still incomparably the best in the world. Let us keep it so.
E. J. STODDARD (member of the Detroit bar).
May 1, 1920.
Thursday, June 9, 2016
Reminder on Design v. Utility Patents
by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com
Just a reminder on US patent terms --
Utility patent terms are 20 years from the earliest priority date. Maintenance fees are due at 3½, 7½ and 11½ years after grant of the patent.
Design patent terms are 15 years from grant. Design patents do not have maintenance fees.
Just a reminder on US patent terms --
Utility patent terms are 20 years from the earliest priority date. Maintenance fees are due at 3½, 7½ and 11½ years after grant of the patent.
Design patent terms are 15 years from grant. Design patents do not have maintenance fees.
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
From My Antique Patent Document Collection – Message From James Madison
I have an extensive collection of antique and significantly
historic patent related books and papers. From time to time, I like to
show these off.
At this time, I am showing a brief pamphlet, a message from President James Madison to Congress.
The message was dated 1816.
And as can be seen, the message was tabled and not further acted upon.
The text of the message is set out below:
For an easier read, I reproduce the text below.
Let me know if you would like to see any of my other historical materials.
At this time, I am showing a brief pamphlet, a message from President James Madison to Congress.
The message was dated 1816.
And as can be seen, the message was tabled and not further acted upon.
The text of the message is set out below:
For an easier read, I reproduce the text below.
With a view to the more convenient management of the important and growing business connected with the grant of exclusive rights to inventors and authors, I recommend the establishment of a distinct office, within the department of state, to be charged therewith, under a director with a salary adequate to his services, and with the privilege of franking communications by mail to the office. I recommend also, that further restraints be imposed on the issue of patents to wrongful claimants, and further guards provided against fraudulent exactions of fees by persons possessed of patents.JAMES MADISON.
Let me know if you would like to see any of my other historical materials.
Monday, May 30, 2016
That’s Absolutely It
This is it folks.
The federal patent laws do not create any affirmative right to make, use, or sell anything. As the Supreme Court has stated, “the franchise which the patent grants, consists altogether in the right to exclude every one from making, using, or vending the thing patented, without the permission of the patentee. This is all that he obtains by the patent.”
Leatherman Tool Group v. Cooper Indus., 131 F.3d 1011, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
Friday, May 27, 2016
American Patent History
by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com
It is obvious that many of the provisions of our patent act are derived from the principles and practice which have prevailed in the construction of the law of England in relation to patents .Pennock v. Dialogue, 27 U.S. 1, 14 (U.S. 1829)
So You Want to Be a Pro Se?
by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com
Despite being vigorously counseled against the idea, some inventors will decide that they are going to self-file, known in the patent world as filing “pro se”. That is their decision to make. All patent practitioners can then do, is accept their decision and warn them about the potential negative effects of their decision. Or, if asked, we can take over their prosecution.
by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com
Despite being vigorously counseled against the idea, some inventors will decide that they are going to self-file, known in the patent world as filing “pro se”. That is their decision to make. All patent practitioners can then do, is accept their decision and warn them about the potential negative effects of their decision. Or, if asked, we can take over their prosecution.
by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com
Patents and Politics
by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com
Federation of Musician Union Member 10081167, San Bernardino, local 47, Los Angeles, CA.
PS: I am really a small business entity because of the lack of money. And, I feel it is because of being thought of as the other political candidate’s opponent. . . .’ .
PPS: I, Larry K. Reed, won’t: allow any person to look either similar or identical as my own facial features or former photos. Furthermore. I refuse to allow any person to become me or my facial features in the event of my death: or by any method of resurrection. cloning. imaging, reincarnation, or by looking like a look alike.
WOW.
PS: I am really a small business entity because of the lack of money. And, I feel it is because of being thought of as the other political candidate’s opponent. . . .’ .
PPS: I, Larry K. Reed, won’t: allow any person to look either similar or identical as my own facial features or former photos. Furthermore. I refuse to allow any person to become me or my facial features in the event of my death: or by any method of resurrection. cloning. imaging, reincarnation, or by looking like a look alike.
WOW.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Flying High With US Des. 135,749
by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com
The Curtiss P-40 Warhawk is an American single-engined, single-seat, all-metal fighter and ground-attack aircraft that first flew in 1938. The P-40 design was a modification of the previous Curtiss P-36 Hawk which reduced development time and enabled a rapid entry into production and operational service. The Warhawk was used by most Allied powers during World War II, and remained in frontline service until the end of the war. It was the third most-produced American fighter, after the P-51 and P-47; by November 1944, when production of the P-40 ceased, 13,738 had been built,[4] all at Curtiss-Wright Corporation‘s main production facilities at Buffalo, New York. See more on the P-40.
The Curtiss P-40 Warhawk is an American single-engined, single-seat, all-metal fighter and ground-attack aircraft that first flew in 1938. The P-40 design was a modification of the previous Curtiss P-36 Hawk which reduced development time and enabled a rapid entry into production and operational service. The Warhawk was used by most Allied powers during World War II, and remained in frontline service until the end of the war. It was the third most-produced American fighter, after the P-51 and P-47; by November 1944, when production of the P-40 ceased, 13,738 had been built,[4] all at Curtiss-Wright Corporation‘s main production facilities at Buffalo, New York. See more on the P-40.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Portion of Lanham Act Section 2(a) Declared Unconstitutional
by Steve Reiss - now at stevenreiss@sbp-us.com
Congress enacted the Lanham Act in 1946 to provide a national system for registering and protecting trade-marks used in interstate and foreign commerce.
The Lanham Act, over 70 years old, has rarely been in the public’s eye. The Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, In re Tam (en banc), an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board noted that:
Congress enacted the Lanham Act in 1946 to provide a national system for registering and protecting trade-marks used in interstate and foreign commerce.
The Lanham Act, over 70 years old, has rarely been in the public’s eye. The Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, In re Tam (en banc), an appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board noted that:
Only in the last several decades has the disparagement provision [15 USC 1052(a)] become a more frequent ground of rejection or cancellation of trademarks.And now, the Federal Circuit has spoken. In In re Tam, the en banc court has made it clear:
The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks.It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others. The government regulation at issue amounts to viewpoint discrimination, and under the strict scrutiny review appropriate for government regulation of message or viewpoint, we conclude that the disparagement proscription of §2(a) is unconstitutional.As to the long history of the Lanham Act and its ‘sudden’ unconstitutionality, Judge Lourie says in dissent:
First, one wonders why a statute that dates back nearly seventy years—one that has been continuously applied—is suddenly unconstitutional as violating the First Amendment. Is there no such thing as settled law,normally referred to as stare decisis. Since the inception of the federal trademark registration program in 1905, the federal government has declined to issue registrations of disparaging marks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)