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