SPECIAL SUMMARY REPORT
THE GREAT DEBATE
FIRST-TO-INVENT vs. FIRST-TO-FILE
INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION TREATY
Distribution, Use of
#5 / #6 / #7 / #8
#9 / #10 / #11 / #12 #13 / #14 / #15
Arguments & Rebuttals
Closing Comments &
by Stephen Paul Gnass
There are many complex issues involved with the International Harmonization Treaty. At this time, we are presenting what we believe to be the most vital issue concerning America's economical future and the American entrepreneur, small business, and independent inventor - the proposed change of the U.S. patent system to a "First-to-File" process.
We believe that the proposed "First-to-File" system will discourage the small entity and independent inventor by skyrocketing the costs, and making the invention process accessible only to well-financed large corporations with in-house "patent factories".
Although the idea of harmonizing the world's patent laws has many merits which should be considered, the real question here is whether the U.S. Administration is being pressured by special interests, both foreign and/or domestic, into sacrificing our unique "First-to-Invent" patent system, the very foundation of what America has been built upon, and using it as a "trading chip" in order to obtain fair patent practice concessions from our trading partners?
Or has the U.S. Administration taken it upon itself to make this pivotal decision without the advice or consent of the majority constituency it serves, the people who would be detrimentally impeded by this verdict?
U.S. Small Business Administration studies confirm that the U.S. Patent System has been responsible for stimulating the commercialization of the world's most important breakthroughs.
So why doesn't the rest of the world adopt the U.S. successful "First-to-Invent" system, which is a "just and fair" system instead of the proposed "First-to-File" which is an "arbitrary" system? The U.S. system is based upon a democratic philosophy of respecting and protecting the inherent rights of the individual as our founding fathers intended it to be. Based upon this ideology of individual rights, this "Reverse Harmonization" would spread democracy that could benefit authors and inventors worldwide, regardless of race, creed, sec, financial status, etc. (see Thomas Jefferson's thought in question #1.)
An international "Harmonization" of patent laws can be very positive - as long as it doesn't affect the ability of the small entity and independent inventor to participate in the innovation process.
The "American Dream" is all about the ability of any individual, no matter what his background, to lift himself up by his bootstraps and make something of his life through dedication and being able to capitalize on his ideas, talents and skills. This is America's sacred legacy.
The international "Harmonization" Treaty should give equal treatment to the individual spirit - whether the lone inventor, a small company or a large corporation, not tipping the scale one way or the other. All should benefit. In the past, our system in the U.S. has helped in releasing this inherent creativity of individuals. We could easily lose sight, as many great nations have before us, of the importance of the individual.
"The Chinese Mind Game: The Best Kept Secrets of the East"
By Chin-Ning Chu
Controlling, regulating or suppressing creativity, innovation, and invention through rules, legislation and laws absolutely smother the fires of creativity and discourages individuals from innovating.
Recognizing and rewarding the importance of innovators in the U.S. and around the world will encourage our children to respect and emulate these great role models.
The proposed "First-to-File" legislation is not only a frightening omen that a few of our elected officials haven't been doing their homework, and may in fact be sleep walking, but that the same might apply to many, if not most of us, in the invention community.
Inventors Voice has been created with the mission of grass roots government relations: