First to Invent vs. First to File
Did you know that the United States is the only country in the world that offers patent protection under its patent law to those who are the "first to invent"? All other countries are on a "first to file" basis, and pressure has been placed on the United States to conform. Some of that pressure has decreated since the GATT Treaty which provides for citizens of any country to take advantage of the "first to invent" privilege in the U.S.
While conformity—or "Harmonization" as it is called—may seem to make sense, an important question begs asking: "Why has the United States led the world in technological development?" We believe that a key factor has been the "first to invent" feature of our 200-year-old patent law—and the priority/protection it provides.
Think about it. If big corporations had to file for a patent every time their R&D came up with a new product idea, they'd all go broke! They know there is a better way, and they all use it.
The first thing they do is to document their idea in a manner that establishes legal ownership as well as "priority" under patent laws—the same priority that filing for a patent provides. Then, they proceed to make improvements and develop their idea to its logical conclusion, all the while documenting every part of that process in their "laboratory workbooks." At the point where they believe it has reached its logical conclusion and has commercial value, they file for a patent. This may be months, and possibly years, after they establish priority as the "first to invent".
The "additional evidence" that the patent office will look for is exactly the type of documentation we've described. If ICI established priority in this manner prior to Calgene having done so, the issue patent could be nullified.
Your Home Study Program teaches that documentation system. It works for individuals just as well as it does for big companies. If they can't afford to file for protection on all their ideas, neither can individual inventors!
Because our program teaches a way to determine whether or not an idea has commercial value within 12 to 14 weeks, we do not believe individuals are as vulnerable to the risk of a "first ot file" law as are large companies. By far the biggest risk faced by individual inventors is having an idea stolen by a partner, friend or other acquaintance. To overcome that risk, you must establish legal ownership of your ideas. And that's exactly what proper documentation in the Invention Workbook included in your program does for you.
To illustrate this need for legal ownership and the risk without it, let's say your car was parked in your driveway with the keys in it. Someone comes along and drives off with it. If you call the police, what do you have to prove the car is yours? The title, of course. Without it, that thief owns your car! For the exact same reason, you need the "title" to your ideas.
As long as the law stays as it is and protects the "first to invent," your Home Study Program gives you a way to achieve the same priority as a patent application. And, it saves the high costs and complications of filing for a patent while providing a basis for legal recourse should your idea be stolen.
More than that, it teaches a method of getting your idea into the middle of its marketplace very quickly. Should the law change to "first to file," that will work to your great advantage as an independent inventor! We'll keep you apprised of this "first to..." scenario.
U.S. ties to settle dispute over patent for super tomato
The Associated Press
DOVER, Del – The patent for the first genetically engineered tomato is coming under scrutiny by the federal government. The patent was issued to Calgene Inc. for a technology used to produce a tomato that can be picked ripe from the vine and shipped to market without spoiling. But now the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is looking into whether the patent should remain with Davis, California-based Calgene or go to ICI Americas Inc., a Wilmington-based chemical company.
"We are asking for additional evidence to determine who is entitled to the patent," patent office spokesman Oscal Mastin said Tuesday. "Our system is based on who is the first to invent, not the first to file (for the patent)."
Calgene applied for the patent in October 1986: ICI applied for a similar patent the following month. Calgene got the patent in 1989 and got permission in May to sell its super tomato, the Flavr Svr, which is expected on grocery store shelves next year.
Roger Salquist, Calgene chairman and chief executive officer, said ICI's announcement of the investigation was "a cheap shot by a large foreign corporation trying to throw its weight around." Simon Best, business manager of ICI's fruit and vegetable technology division, said he could not release details sought by the patent office. The technology at issue is a process that inactivates a gene that produces an enzyme that causes rotting. By inactivating the gene, engineers produced a tomato that can be picked ripe and shipped thousands of miles without turning mushy.
|
Advisory Main Index
|
