Patent Office

"The only way we will ever have free energy is if we give it away."- Peter Lindemann.

There have been reports from inventors and a patent office employee of an an ever growing hold over the public via the corporate patenting process.In particular these reports mention the suppression of FREE energy technology. More reports have been included on the FREE energy suppression page.

Taken from a machine to die for, this shot was covering the

patent suppression case of the Joseph Newman free energy device

Tom Valone is a former patent examiner who was fired a few years ago from the patent office and recently won a lawsuit against the US Patent Office, Tom was awarded reinstatement and six years of back pay. Dr. Thomas Valone has estimated that Patent Applications for FREE ENERGY related devices have been "secretized" over 3,000 times over the years.

Inventors cannot get a US patent based on Cold fusion and or "free energy" Quote -Arie held several patents. The ones on alternative energy were mostly held at WIPO and filed in the Netherlands because the US patent office are biased that he did not waste time or money on them if the invention was at all close to cold fusion or free energy.-End quote.More detail on Tom's experiences has been included below.

Without regulation and public intervention into the patent office the corporations will continue their attempt to own life and subjugate the public.

Justification for regulation of the patent office

Other examples are important to illustrate the need for reforms into the patent office process.This can been seen in the EV1 electric car case.Texaco sold the NiMH battery technology to Amoco. GM had a 60% controlling interest in the technology, and announced their sellout of world wide patent rights to Texaco on October 10, 2000. Six days later, Chevron bought out Texaco in a 100 billion dollar merger.

Cobasys is Chevron's subsidiary, which effectively killed further development of the NiMH batteries for all-electric cars. Panasonic had developed a "E-95" NiMH battery that was powerful enough to energize an all-electric car at speeds to 80 mph, and with a range of 120 miles. The expected battery life was longer than the life expectancy of the vehicle, and in fact more than 1,000 of Toyota's RAV4 EV units have already surpassed the 100,000 mile mark.

Cobasys successfully sued Panasonic for the sum of 30 million dollars, thus killing any further sales of EV-95 batteries. The batteries cannot be sold, or imported, into the US. Cobasys refuses to grant any other company the license to manufacture the EV-95 batteries, and will not even think of producing the EV-95 themselves, unless guaranteed a massive order by an OEM.

The only currently available alternative to a EV-95 NiMH battery is a lithium-ion battery pack, but these typically cost around $14,000, which is about 6 times as expensive as an EV-95, and haven't been around long enough to establish a proven track record.

The EV technology is a story of two crimes against humanity. The first occurred when GM failed to develop the RV and sold the worldwide patent rights to an oil company, which GM obviously realized would have no interest in the technology other than to suppress it. The second crime against humanity is how Chevron very effectively stifled any efforts to utilize or advance the NiMH technology.

What we really need is a reform of patent laws to allow for criminal prosecution and penalties against any patent holder who participates in any activity that results in suppression of a technology which would otherwise hold great promise for the benefit of mankind. The reform laws should include all past, present, and future patents.

This is the only way to free up the thousands of existing patent device on FREE energy that are currently being suppressed. Current patent laws can be consicdered to serve and protect the criminal actions and behavior of corporations and special interest groups who wish to advance their own agenda at the expense of all other peoples and groups. If you haven't already done so, please contact your legislative representatives and demand that they initiate patent law reform that fully addresses the changes that need to occur.

These empirical accounts justify the need for safeguards to be put in place to prevent any possible corruption. With a public gesture of this nature, Panacea rationalizes that it will have the capacity to attract (based on the evidence in the energy suppression section) additional "whistle blowers" out there.

Panacea has already documented Joseph Newman's tangible evidence of 'questionable' behaviour in the patent office. Now we will further present additional evidence.Their combined experience alone is enough to justify the public to sign petitions to commnce regulation and investigation into the patent office.

As stated in the introduction. Tom Valone is a former patent examiner who was fired a few years ago from the patent office and recently won a lawsuit against the US Patent Office, Tom was awarded reinstatement and six years of back pay.

In a 2001 email to Gary Vesperman, Valone wrote in part: Quote-"As a former Patent Examiner, I can tell you that the number of "securitized" patents in the vault at the Patent Office (Park 5 Bldg.) is closer to 4000 or more. They never receive a patent number, and the inventor is rarely, if ever, compensated by the government for use of the invention." The U.S. Patent Office has a nine-member committee that screens patents for national security implications. A hidden purpose of this committee is to also screen energy-related patents which could threaten the power and fossil fuel companies, -End Quote

The US Patent Office has patents "protected" for "National Security reasons" if this is the excuse to keep the technology under wraps, then what is the excuse for the patents of all those inventors (worldwide) refused and who suddenly disappear, die, or were simply brought out?, is the patent office service really up too scratch and needs no scrutiny?

Can you logically address why their institution would not need public intervention and reform for security against such spurious influence?

Reference: SECRECY ORDER-(Title 35, United States Code (1952), sections 181-188) Reference: The US military reviews all patents before a examiner sees them. The Government could take a patent away from you and classify it as secret.

Action to Declassify Secret Energy Patents by Gary Vesperman A Proposed Bill to Support New Energy Sourcese

Las Vegas-area Congresswoman Shelley Berkley announced last August, at a meeting in Las Vegas, a bill for the Small Business Administration to annually provide 750 million dollars in energy loan guarantees (see Berkley Reveals Green Energy Solutions).In response to Berkley's subsequent request for responses from the audience, I explained that the U.S. Patent Office has a nine-member committee which screens patents for national security implications, and that a hidden purpose of this committee is to lock up energy-related patents which could threaten the fossil-fuel monopolies and the power grid (nuclear, coal, etc.).

When an inventor has his or her energy patent classified, I explained, the inventor faces 20 years in prison for working on or publicizing the invention.I told Berkley and the audience that a Space Energy Journal article by Don Kelly claimed some years ago that there are now 3000 energy patents which have been classified, and that I considered it highly likely that there were some potentially very productive new sources of energy locked up in those 3000 patents.I asked Berkley to add a section to her bill to establish some kind of mechanism for going back and reviewing all these classified energy patents for possible release and government support for their development.Berkley seemed favorably responsive. I offered to help her write the section, and was referred to a staff member.Below are a few stories to give readers who are unfamiliar with energy invention suppression a feeling for the ruthlessness and unfairness of this dirty, greedy business.[1]Energy Patent Suppression: Seven Cautionary Tales Story No. 1

Neil Schmidt stopped in my office on May 12, 1995, to tell me this story about his invention of a hydraulic wind turbine.At this time, he had been living in Las Vegas for seven years. But nine years before, he was living in the Seattle area, and had visited a federal Small Business Administration office there to apply for financial aid.The following day, he received a telephone call. He was told his device would not work, and not to bother with it.He had provided the SBA office with hardly more than a sketch, so a hot argument erupted which lasted half an hour. The caller ended up hinting death to Neil if he didn't stop working on his invention.A couple of days later, Neil went back to the office and walked around unsuccessfully trying to identify the voice he had heard on the telephone. Neil also has heard that another energy inventor living near his Washington residence had been shot in the head and blinded.

Story No. 2- When one of my inventor friends was a young man, he invented a 90-mpg carburetor. He was paid a visit by four men, including one from Standard Oil and two wearing U.S. Marshal's uniforms.They told him that if he ever made another carburetor, they would kill him, his wife, and two young children. He was quickly persuaded that his life wasn't worth a "damn carburetor."
He happened to think to memorize the badge numbers of the two "US Marshals," and so had an attorney in Washington, DC, check with the US Marshal's office. They had no record of the two badge numbers.

Story No. 3-In the 1930s, Henry T. Moray was refused a patent on his cold semiconductor cathode, allegedly because the patent examiner couldn't understand how it could emit electrons. Twenty years later, the development of the transistor proved that his device could actually have worked. Then in 1940, Moray demonstrated before members of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) his free energy generator, which gave a continuous output of 250,000 volts with no apparent input. The next day he was found shot in his lab, and all of his notes and device were stolen.Currently, the Cosray Research Institute of Salt Lake City has been collecting Moray's papers from old acquaintances and attempting to duplicate the device.

Story No. 4- In May 1974, John Andrews, a Portuguese chemist, demonstrated a water-to-gas additive before Navy officials. The additive allowed ordinary water to be added to gasoline without decreasing the combustibility of the gas. It would have driven the cost of gasoline down to two cents per gallon.When U.S. Navy officials finally went to his lab to negotiate for the formula, they found Andrews missing and his lab ransacked.

Story No. 5-In July 1974, the Los Angeles District Attorney, acting under orders from the "top," raided the assembly plant of Ed Gray and confiscated his prototype generator, as well as his plans and records.They brought numerous false charges against him, and defied all attempts by Gray's lawyers to get the confiscated materials returned.Gray's opponents have driven him into bankruptcy (Generator, Free Energy, Patent No. 38,905,480).

Story No. 6- September 3, 1978, a U.S. Government agency restricted development of a CB radio and telephone privacy device. The device had been invented by four men — Carl Kicolai, William Raike, Carl Quale, and David Miller, of Seattle, Washington. It prevents eavesdropping on CB radio and telephone transmissions for nonmilitary, nongovernment use.

The patent was applied for and refused. The National Security Agency was quick to issue a secrecy order against them,[2] preventing them from even talking about the invention without risking a jail term.The order was received six months after a patent was filed for the device. The Patent Office wrote: "Your application . . . has been found to contain subject matter, the unauthorized disclosure of which might be detrimental to national security.

"Story No. 7-Most people believe that it is impossible to build a motor run solely by magnets. Howard Johnson spent six years fighting the Patent Office to accept the reality of his magnet motor. They finally granted him U.S. Patent 4,151,431.

There are dozens of other magnet motor patents.Many achievements in developing free energy from magnetism have occurred in obscure basement workshops all over the country. In most cases, these achievements remain the secret of the inventor, who fears reprisal. Engineers at Hitachi Magnetics Corporation have publicly admitted that a motor run by magnets is feasible and logical. But the politics of the matter make it impossible for them to pursue developing a magnet motor, or any device that would compete with the energy cartels.Recent Developments: Reviving the OTA OTA, or Office of Technology Assessment, is an arm of Congress that formerly — from 1972 to 1995 — provided comprehensive assessments of a wide range of scientific and technical issues.In August 2001, I learned that Rush Holt (D-NJ) has introduced legislation in the House of Representatives proposing to return the OTA to active status (OTA — see nie.org/Updates/106.htm).

During its years of operation, OTA supplied Congress with background papers, briefings, and testimony, but was best known for its in-depth, objective reports of complex scientific and technical issues. These reports took one to two years to produce and could be requested by the chairman of any Congressional committee.OTA's Environment Program addressed areas including environmental health and risk management, the use of renewable resources, and pollution prevention, control and remediation. Its reports covered topics such as agriculture, biological diversity, air and water pollution, the effects of weather and climate change, management of solid, hazardous, and nuclear wastes, risk assessment methods and policy, and public land management.Resurrecting OTA was suggested in Recommendations for Improving the Scientific Basis for Environmental Decision Making, a report from the first national conference of the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE).

NCSE suggested reviving the Office of Technology Assessment as a change that could "significantly improve efficiency and communication among scientists and between scientists and decision makers."The full text of this report can be found online at NCSEonline.org.National Public Radio's July 18 broadcast of "All Things Considered" included a segment on reopening OTA. During this piece, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), chairman of the House Science Committee, and Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), a physicist by training, lauded the work of OTA and their "wonderful, detailed, long-term studies."However, Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives when OTA was eliminated, noted that many conservatives felt that OTA "was used by liberals to cover up political ideology with a gloss of science."Rep. Holt's bill, H.R. 2148, would revive OTA by simply reenacting its 1972 formative legislation and authorizing a budget of 20 million dollars per year for five years. This is the same level of funding OTA received in 1994. Currently, this legislation has 50 cosponsors.[3].To express your opinion on H.R. 2148 and the revival of OTA, contact your Representative and Senators at:

* Honorable [insert name], United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515
* Senator [insert name], United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510

For details about OTA, including an archive of reports, see www.princeton.edu/ota, or contact Kevin Hutton, Webmaster, National Council for Science and the Environment, 1725 K St. NW, Suite 212, Washington, DC 20006, website cnie.org.

It's Probably Closer to 4000
Thomas Valone, of the Integrity Research Institute (iri@erols.com) wrote to me saying that my suggestion to Congresswoman Berkley was "an answer to a prayer." Integrity Research Institute (IntegrityResearch.org) and the Disclosure Project[4] both support your suggestion. I will be happy to cooperate with your requests (see "How You Can Help," below), and even meet with staffperson Guiton at his convenience.

As a former Patent Examiner, I can tell you that the number of "secretized" patents in the vault at the Patent Office (Park 5 Bldg.) is closer to 4000 or more. They [applicants] never receive a patent number, and the inventor is rarely, if ever, compensated by the government for use of the invention.Since you have taken the initiative to start this process, we can help by contacting our Congresspeople and asking them to send letters to Congresswoman Berkley in support. I also suggest that we all should ask our Congresspersons to contact the three committees that are pertinent to this subject: Environment and Public Works (headed by James Jeffords); Energy and Natural Resources (headed by Jeff Bingaman); and Commerce (headed by Ernest Hollings).Help from Down UnderConcerning the proposal of an energy bill to declassify patents, Australia's Trevor Osborne (wharmony@iinet.net.au) wrote me that he has sent out an email to about 100 opinion leaders who might help perpetuate the momentum."So the momentum is gaining speed," Osborne wrote. "First, we had the Disclosure Project. Now we have the proposed Energy Bill to Declassify Energy Patents.

So please do your best to pass this news on to anyone who may be interested in writing to and/or phoning their Congressperson to offer their support to this bill."Meanwhile on Capitol HillThe energy bill that was actually passed by the House was not about strengthening America's strategic energy position. Rather, it was about something much simpler — a gigantic giveaway to the energy industry.The dishonesty began with the bill's very first sentence: "To enhance energy conservation, research, and development. . ." In fact, the bill not only ignored conservation, it actually subverted it, epitomizing Vice President Cheney's view that "conservation is for wimps."The bill, among other things, extends a loophole for automobiles that can also run on ethanol but rarely do; this means that overall vehicle fuel efficiency would probably be reduced.

Yet 36 Democrats joined Republicans in voting for this legislation, giving President Bush a comfortable margin of victory — and, as with the tax cut, bipartisan cover.Not surprisingly, it was mostly Democrats from auto-producing and energy states who supported the bill. These included John D. Dingell (Michigan), Brad Carson (Oklahoma) and Chet Edwards (Texas), as well as Californians Joe Baca (Rialto) and Calvin M. Dooley (Visalia).The bill is a natural target for Democrats. For one thing, the links between campaign contributions and the bill's provisions could hardly be clearer. In an analysis released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) called "Hitting the Jackpot," the rewards for industry are outlined.The report mischievously observes that the cumulative value of the 2000 election-campaign contributions by the coal, oil and gas, nuclear, and utility industries — the lion's share of which went to the GOP — was 69.5 million dollars.

But the total value of the tax breaks and subsidies is 36.4 billion dollars. The rate of return on these campaign contributions was thus a whopping 52,200 percent!Specifically, the coal mining industry, which contributed 3.8 million dollars, would receive 1.1 billion dollars in direct subsidies in the next three years, and an extra 1.4 billion dollars over the next seven years.Typical of the bill is that government would assume the industry's costs for applying to mine coal on federal lands.The oil industry, which contributed 33.3 million dollars in 2000, would get tax breaks worth 12.8 billion dollars, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. For instance, it would no longer have to pay royalties for oil and gas lease sales.The only good news is that the Senate is not likely to pass the energy bill unamended.

How You Can Help?

I can see several ways you can help me declassify energy patents by focusing a public spotlight on the Patent Office's patent secrecy performance.

First, you can help me by providing references to back up my claims concerning the 9-member screening committee, the 20-year jail sentence for breaking a "gag order," and the number and nature of the classified patents. I will in turn send these to Mark Guiton, legislative director in the U.S. House of Representatives.[5]Second, it will also help if you can provide me with name and contact information for an expert on classified patents.

I can then suggest to Mark Guiton that he go to this expert for information and advice.Third, if you can, please give thought to the mechanism that might be incorporated into the new section of the legislation, specifying exactly how the patents are to be reviewed and declassified. One crucial feature would involve how people are selected for the review agency to assure that they will be honest, rather than "toadies" for fossil fuel and nuclear interests.

I feel that it would be of value to hold a public seminar in the Washington, DC, area on the subject — perhaps in a Patent Office auditorium. Any way in which you can lend support to such a seminar would be welcome.And it will assist my own endeavors if someone could email me a copy of the actual form the Patent Office uses when directing an inventor to stop working on an invention (vman@skylink.net).

In Conclusion I think Congresswoman Berkley deserves high praise for introducing an unusually progressive energy bill. I urge you all to write your congresspeople and senators to support a bill which would include a provision for systematically reviewing all classified energy patents for release.Gary Vesperman is a tireless writer and activist with knowledge in a vast area of subjects of interest and concern to modern technology and our way of life. His mailing address is 3123 Trueno Road, Henderson, NV 89014-3142, phone 702-435-7947. He can be reached via email at vman@skylink.net.

Footnotes:

1. Please note that I have not independently verified the truthfulness of these stories.
2. Called "gag orders," defiance risks a 20-year prison term.
3. Cosponsors of the OTA-revival bill include Thomas H. Allen (D-ME), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Judy Biggert (R-IL), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), Rick Boucher (D-VA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO), William J. Coyne (D-PA), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), John D. Dingell (D-MI), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Michael F. Doyle (D-PA), Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI), Eliot L. Engel (D-NY), Bob Filner (D-CA), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), James Greenwood (R-PA), Tony P. Hall (D-OH), Jane Harman (D-CA), Joseph M. Hoeffel (D-PA), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Michael M. Honda (D-CA), Amo Houghton (R-NY), Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD), Dale E. Kildee (D-MI), Ron Kind (D-WI), John J. LaFalce (D-NY), John Lewis (D-GA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Karen McCarthy (D-MO), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), James P. Moran (D-VA), Constance Morella (R-MD), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Richard E. Neal (D-MA), John W. Olver (D-MA), Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ), Donald M. Payne (D-NJ), David E. Price (D-NC), Tom Sawyer (D-OH), Christopher Shays (R-CT), Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY), Adam Smith (D-WA), Vic Snyder (D-AR), Hilda L. Solis (D-CA), and David Wu (D-OR).
4. See disclosureproject.org. See also this month's Spirit of Ma'at article titled Secrets From the Stars.
5. His email is Mark.Guiton@Mail.House.Gov. He also can be reached: by mail at U.S. House of Representatives, 439 Cannon Building, Washington, DC 20515; by phone at 202-225-5965; and by fax at 202-225-3119.

Further Frank Boring Fitzgerald made contact with Pancea and reports:

My sonofusion US patent application was rejected and I duly filed via
postal service a reply1 and reply2, timely. Canada has also rejected my PA. But China, Ukraine, and Costa Rica are still working on the same PA.However, the USPTO personnel sent me a letter of abandonment saying they never received my reply1 and they treated reply2 as a petition which was denied.

I am going to let stand their abandonment because it is a ruse to keep me from properly addressing their rejection. It appears to me, USPTO has a number of internal problems which need to be addressed and corrected else the US Congress must pass legislation to abolish the USPTO and start from scratch.I propose a new PO to branch into divisions depending upon subject matter.

"The Case Against Patents"

Some years back a rather prolific electronic writer and electronics enthusiast named Don Lancaste wrote a Book called "The Case Against Patents" heres a link to one of his articles that outline some of the reasons why creative inventors should not waste time and money with the patent process.

If you read Dons article, here is one of his summary suggestions
"Publish all your key secrets and ideas in a major magazine, leaving out no detail, and omitting no inside secrets. This can generate positive cash flow and safely tucks all your ideas away in the public domain, preventing most others form attempting to patent them. This will also expose your ideas to the widest public audience.

The FREE energy inventor Protecting intellectual property

Options and alternatives have to considered carefully. The idea is to establish that the information originated from you.

Option 1. First produce two printed copies of the information and take them to a large firm of solicitors or to a "Notary Public". Get them to stamp, date, and sign each page. You then keep one copy yourself and get them to hold the other in a secure place. This can be used at any later date as a securely established date in a court of law.

Option 2. You can make an application for a Patent and not take it to completion. Doing this in the USA has already been shown in the above references to be dangerous as your invention can easily have a spurious "Of National Security Importance" designation applied to it which would effectively steal it from you and prevent you from ever speaking about it again. If you decide to go down the patent route, it is advised that you consider applying for a European patent rather than a patent in the united states

For example a Dutch Patent.The nice thing about the Dutch route, is that you can publish everything you want about your patent the day after the Dutch patent office receives your application,while still leaving all options open to apply for a patent elsewhere in the world, more information can be found on the dutch patent link refernced above..Then you can decide wether to go the WIPO / PCT route.

The case against patyents clearly points out that patent protection is often times useless as it takes millions to enforce as well as wasting massive amounts of time which could be much more effectively spent in something productive. Further, minor changes made to your design could well be interpreted by a court as making your patent inapplicable.So, the thrust of a patent is solely against manufacturing and private individuals are always free to make one for their own use.

For $200.00 dollars you can upload your idea to the IP.COM web site and they will keep it on file and in the public domain while not allowing anyone else to patent the idea. The patent office uses this IP.COM web site searching for intellectual technology claims as part of their search process when viewing or examining new patent claims.

A copyright document published on the Panacea university with your name and announced wiht dates ona public forum is another way. This prevents others from patenting your idea. As long as public record with time and dates can be established as can be teh case in a public forum.

Put your information on several websites as a self-contained downloadable document (preferably in .pdf form as that is virus free). That way, before the opposition has the time to do anything about it, there will be thousands of copies on PCs throughout the world, and that gives you the added protection of potentially hundreds of people capable of testifying in court that they had a copy of your information in their hands on a date prior to any possible claims by the opposition.

Widespread publication on the web (and especially the peer-to-peer systems) puts the opposition in a position where it is very difficult to do anything. Direct frontal attacks draw attention to the information and, worse still, provide it with the recommendation that it bothers them that it is being published. The usual indirect attacks of getting their paid lackeys to shout "impossible", "disproven by the laws of physics", "ridiculous", "it's a scam", etc are not all that effective as a substantial proportion of the people getting your document(s) will never come across those statements, and the more effective people who do come across these rubbish statements are perfectly able to think for themselves.

Patent holders working with Open source FREE energy engineers for security.

The knowledge of FREE energy engineering has be known publicly at the faculty level and be secure there other then JUST HAVING THE SALES OF THE DEVICE. There are many reasons for this.

Paul Pantone the inventor of the patented GEET technology who also gave away FREE knowledge on his device states: Knowing you have the answer to clean-up the World's pollution is not enough.Now we must teach it to the World, or we will have failed.— Paul Pantone

Sharing the technology with open source engineers and at the faculty level can REACH the most people to capacity and help start a critically needed a new genre of FREE energy research and faculty study. Starting a research and development center for this purpose can also help revive past suppressed devices and create social reform with better security into the issue.

The FREE energy inventor must ask himself, why did i invent the device?, Is there a part in me that is for humanity since i have invented a device which FREE's people of the ruling class and protects our children's future?. Do i want the knowledge out side of corporate ownership to be SECURE, remembered and to reach as many people as it can?.

The list of the many PRESENT AND PAST suppression reports must be addressed and prevented. Patent holders with a FREE energy device (for example the Rosemary Ainslie COP 17 Heater Technology listed on the Panacea university site) have already worked with the open source FREE energy community. In return for the security, R and D benefits were attained and the device still achieved remuneration. Security is paramount. Plus the device got complete public access and helped us achieve the critically needed job of advancing education.

With out this in effect the knowledge would have been masked in the device. Free energy has profound implications to the electrical engineering faculties and 3 world countries plus the ruling class.

Having the knowledge taught in a research and development center such as that proposed by Panacea (non profit), secures the knowledge for a new faculty engineering curricular and helps open the door to study the past suppressed devices and advances education.These devices give us profound knowledge into the universe and our selves. The Research and development center is there to protect and advance them.

New insights into electricity as a result and being able to create a "course" into these device(s) opens up this neglected genre of research in electrical engineering. This is going to benefit kids in real time and they will remember the FREE energy engineers names.

Its just as lucrative for the patent holder to have the knowledge taught at the faculty level as well as getting remuneration for the devices. Patenting and going open source is the best balance for this task -Contact us.

Is The Patent Office And Justice Department Corrupt?

By Robert Jackson -I have a theory that the integrity of the patent office and the justice department has been compromised thru political appointees I think a independent investigation should be perform to see if some companies(Republican) and individuals get preferred treatment.These political appointees hire there own people and put them in positions that help in there cause(promoting republican companies and themselves).

I think a good indicator would be the percentage of patents applied for and patents granted for companies like Halliburton,ExxonMobil,or any other oil company. The type of patents should be consider too(certain technologies shouldn't be sat on) and the percentage of favorable rulings on there behalf should also be considered.

It would take alot of resources to investigate this. I have done some limited research and noticed that Halliburton is getting a high number of patents granted(a sizable percentage doesn't seem to have anything to do with the oil business).This researched was done a couple years ago(very limited).I also tried to contact a few organizations with my concerns (none had the resources to help me). I also think it's more than a consequence that Martha Stewart(a heavy democratic contributor) was prosecuted and people like Ken Lay(Enron) were let off(I wonder if he is really dead or not)

I made a list of red and blue companies. The red companies are:ExxonMobil,ConocoPhillips,Halliburton,Wal-Mart,MCI-WorldCom,General Electric,Hewlett-Packard,EDS,Texas Instruments,Dell Computer, ateway,Verizon,3-M,Morgan Stanley,Merrill Lynch,and New Balance.

The Blue companies are:IBM,Microsoft,TimeWarner, oogle,CBS,Apple,New York Times,Syms, attel,Hasbro, artha Stewart,Adobe,PDF Solutions,Actel,and Starbucks.

I do think this should be researched and analyze.

I also believed there should be some safeguards in place to prevent corruption in the future. Robert(Rob)Jackson

No regulaitons are currently in place, recently it has been revealed:

The lawsuit argues that Peterlin is not qualified to hold the job because she does not meet the law's definition and asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to order the Commerce secretary to fire her.

The lawsuit alleges that Peterlin has never drafted a patent or trademark application, has never prepared a legal opinion on whether an invention is entitled to a patent and has no experience "in managing large-scale information workflow organizations," such as the patent office. source.

Patenting life is owning life.

In this article, Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher exposes the absurd result that has arisen from the decision to extend the law of patents to living organisms. The person who discovers a gene is, in effect, conferred ownership of it via a patent! In short, patenting life is owning life.

THE system of patenting was developed for machines. It is being forced onto living things. Most of the problems of patenting life arise from this fact. Imagine that I invent a new kind of carburetor that economises on fuel. If I patent it, is the rest of the car also patented? When I patent an organism because I claim to have invented a gene, do I patent also the whole organism?

Conversely, can I patent a whole organism because I claim to have been inventive in the context of one of its genes, or one of its traits? If I have invented a carburetor, would I not be able to scale it up or scale it down to make it fit a lorry or a motor cycle?

When I do this, would I not know beforehand what the effect would be on the lorry or on the motor-cycle? When I introduce a gene into one organism or another, do I find that its impact is the same as I predict it to be in both organisms? I will explore these and raise a few other questions in the next few minutes.

The topic given to me is 'Patenting - Owning Life'. I agree with the topic: patenting life is owning it. But whilst I create my carburetor out of materials that have nothing to do with delivering measured amounts of petroleum, I introduce genes or traits into an organism only if they already exist as such in another organism or organisms. Can I patent a car because I fit it with a different kind of carburetor from another car?

Therefore breeding and genetic engineering reorganise something existing; they do not create anything de novo. Considering achievements in reorganising as if they were inventions, is a distortion of meaning, with the aim of distorting reality. This distortion is made for a specific purpose, for controlling living things in the same way as one can control machines one has invented.

Those who patent living things will claim that they are not distorting anything but that they are merely asking for a recognition of their own creativity that has gone into making the living thing what it actually is. But do they create the living thing?

They do not. Even they would only claim that their creativity is reflected in the living thing, not that they have made it. Doublespeak? What creativity can contribute to something already created? What would creativity mean then? If they want reward, they could ask society to develop a system appropriate for their role in the improvement that comes from reorganising. Society pays for many of the services it gets. A service given does not have to be a creation in order to be rewarded.

When they claim creativity in relation to life, one of the activities they point to is the extraction of bio-molecules. Why else would a chemical extracted from a living thing be patented? The extraction and identification of a molecule is a discovery, not a creation, not an invention. We are told that discoveries are not patentable. Or are they? I have now discovered this great city of Brussels. Can I patent it? I would enjoy royalties from the European Union coming to fill my pockets!

Legalising robbery: The use of a biochemical is often the same as what is traditional to local communities somewhere. If a company patents that traditional use as its own invention, is it not then plagiarism? Is the patent office that has allowed it then not legalising robbery? Does an act stop being a crime merely because the law allows it to be committed? Did not Europe and North America set the Nuremberg trials to punish acts that had been legal in the Nazi regime?

The use of a biochemical might also be new, discovered by those who want to patent it. Is that new use an invention, or a discovery? Should then the use, or the chemical itself, be patented? Which is currently being patented in the various industrialised countries, the bio-molecule or the use? Should access to that patented bio-molecule then remain open, and making and using it for purposes other than the patented one be allowed? What is the case in Europe? I realise that once a chemical is available to the public, it is not easy to restrict its use. Is it then fair to deny other uses in order to protect one use? Should we err in favour of society as a whole or in favour of one particular legal or natural individual?

Extracted bio-molecules can often be synthesised and thus be made artificially in a chemical plant. Will the synthesised molecule, then, have been invented? Should it then be patented? I have no problem with patenting the particular process used for the synthesis. But I would find it impossible to accept that the synthesised molecule is considered invented. This is because I would then have to assume that the synthesised molecule is different from the natural one. But even the so-called inventor would not accept this distinction: the rationale behind synthesising something is the making of a substitute.

Dubious In my view the more audacious claim for patent is that for the organism. If the nucleic acid sequence that corresponds to a trait were invented and it did not exist in nature in any species, such a claim could be understood. But, in fact, we know that a trait is often the result of an interaction among many genes or nucleic acid sequences. That is why we can never tell for sure what a newly introduced gene will do in an organism. We only introduce it and find out the effect. This fact alone would have made such a claim dubious.

But even then, one should not claim to have invented the gene or the trait, let alone the whole organism. Do laws allow the patenting of only specific traits? Only nucleic acid sequences? The whole organism? What about simply crossing individuals to create a new individual with a new combination of nucleic acid sequences and traits? Is the organism then an invention? Or do the nucleic acid sequences have to be introduced only through recombinant DNA technology to make the organism an invention? Or will simply identifying the nucleic acid sequences that determine the traits make the organism an invention? The organism is the same in all of these cases. In which case what has genetic engineering or DNA sequencing got to do with patenting?

It is true that recombinant DNA technology combines genes that would not have combined through natural processes. But the genes are not invented. Why do we say the organism is invented? Would it not suffice to say that it is the process that has been invented? Conversely, when we find an organism, it is with all its nucleic acid sequences inside it. Why can't we patent it, if all that genetic engineering does is recombine existing DNA sequences? I hear that such patents on whole organisms unrelated to specific nucleic acid sequencing are allowed in the United States. Are such patents then not understandable?

Would allowing a gene or a trait to be patented not make the other genes and traits in the whole organism unavailable to others? Shouldn't I, looking for ways of using that organism without the patented trait or gene, be allowed to use it? Do I have the right to excise or splice out the patented gene or trait and use the rest? It may be argued that I could use other organisms in that species that do not contain the patented traits or genes. What if that organism with those patented genes or traits is the only surviving variety of the species? In this age of extinction, this is not unlikely. What if there are other genes or traits that occur only in that variety with patented genes or traits? This is a very likely scenario.

Access to that variety could then be continually denied by patenting traits or genes every time an existing patent is about to lapse.

If we use the determination of the nucleic acid sequence constituting a gene as a criterion for patenting, and I understand that this is the case, how would we know that the sequence is unique to the organism being patented? The number of species on earth is estimated to be 10 to 60 million. So far, we know the nucleic acid sequences of all the genes only for one species, the bacterium Escherschia coli.

Assuming that the patenting of a nucleic acid sequence can be allowed only if it is new to life, which would make it a genuine invention, could we ever be certain that a nucleic acid sequence which we find in an organism is really new to life? Obviously not. If we allow patenting for a mere determination of nucleic acid sequences, how will we cope with the sequences which are the same but are in different species?

Need for another system Patenting seems totally inapplicable to life. If we want to reward researchers in the life sciences, we must find another system. If we continue with the distortion of the meaning of invention, we do not know where we will end up. I wonder how many of you have heard of Mr Moore of the United States of America whose liver has been patented. He went to the hospital. They took out a piece of his liver and they cultured it. They patented it. He claimed that they could not patent his liver, because it was his own. I am told that the judge said that since it is outside of him it is not his and it can be patented, i.e. it is invented.

But that piece of liver is the same whether inside or outside Mr Moore. The judge did not dare say that that part inside him is also invented. But how long will it take for the continuing distortion of inventing to accept that the piece of liver inside him is the same as that outside him, and that, therefore, it is the patent holder's invention?

Suppose I buy the patent on Mr Moore's liver, and suppose I also patent his blood in a similar manner, and I want my liver out of him in the style of Shylock. Even Shakespeare's defence of not allowing me to spill blood would not prevent me. I will spill my blood and take my liver, and I will still walk away, possibly claiming my royalties on your use of my Brussels! - (Third World Resurgence No. 106, June 1999) (Dr Tewolde Egziabher is the General Manager of the Environmental Protection Authority in Ethiopia. At the Biosafety Protocol negotiations, he is the Chairperson of the African group of delegates and a prominent spokesperson for the Like Minded Group which comprises almost all developing countries.)

Source article 'Patenting life is owning life'

SIGN THE PETITION HERE to support the regulation of the patent office.