The purpose of NIA is to educate inventors and potential inventors through whatever means
available, including regular meeting, classes, seminars, workshops, and evaluations, within NIA or in cooperation
with other persons or organizations. The education of inventors, or potential inventors, may also include the publishing
of written materials, such as a regularly published newsletter, flyers, notices, or letters. Additional goals of
NIA are to inform its members of private, civic, governmental, and public resources which may be of assistance
to inventors; to promote a positive public image of inventors; to provide for its members a referral/resource directory;
and to furnish assistance to its members, whenever possible, by directing their efforts toward the successful development
of their inventions.
1. Creative Financing for a prototype
2. Receiving Deposits on 12 units.
3. Acquire a patent Pending for 82 countries + US
HR 1907, the complex American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, was voted in, 376-43. What's remarkable is that it underwent a sea of change from its original form, which was initially presented late Friday.
It's extremely rare that key Congressmen pushing a bill will reverse themselves on major features in midstream, concluding that the original wording had serious flaws requiring rapid correction. As a result, aspects of the bill that many critics felt would radically change longstanding patent law were de-fanged.
Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois), a strong opponent of prior patent bills, initially tried to derail the bill, then concluded unhappily, "There *was* going to be a bill." Manzullo's strategy then shifted to trying to repair the bill as it thundered down the tracks. Part of that effort involved getting patent expert Dr. Robert H. Rines of MIT to speak with and persuade, among others, House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Illinois) on the Real-world impacts of nuances of law in the bill.
Hyde and Howard Coble (R-North Carolina) concluded that the bill warranted a major overhaul. Also coming on board after discussions with Rines was Dana Rohrabacher (R-California), a backer of the original version of the bill who had been instrumental in opposing previous bills he thought would harm independent inventors.
Manzullo said among the most significant of the changes he and his colleagues made was the virtual elimination of any "first inventor defense or prior user rights for any other process, method, or product, or other statutorily recognized class of patentable rights."
A prior user right would allow a company that kept an invention secret to continue to use that invention without limitation if another party independently invented and patented it. Rines argued that would decimate the value -- and economic incentive -- of a patent, which depends on exclusivity in order to be licensed or to attract venture capital, unduly rewarding those who elect to keep discoveries from the public.
"Processes as components of invention are rapidly increasing in importance," Rines said. "They include processes for new genetic modification and micro-biological manufacture, and for the rapidly expanding miniaturization techniques in electronic chips and integrated circuits, as well as techniques for plastic and chemical product manufacture."
But an extremely narrow exemption was cut into law, in response to recent court law that held that some methods of doing business could be patentable, something no one had previously assumed to be the case.
"In recognition of this pioneer clarification in the law," says Manzullo, "we felt that those who kept their business practices secret had an equitable cause not to be stopped by someone who subsequently reinvented the method of doing or conducting business and obtained a patent."
As to criticism from some inventors that this threatens an expansion of rights for those keeping trade secrets, Manzullo says the legislative history is clear as to the strict limitation to methods of doing or conducting business.
Some critics, such as Rep. Marcy Kaptur, (D-Ohio), objected to the speed with which the changes came about and the lack of opportunity to carefully consider them. Manzullo agreed with that argument.
"We determined that our approach of trying to make better the legislation was the only option available," he said. "I am happy to say that it worked. The fact that we were allowed to come into the process says something about everyone involved. I admit that the process was not the best, but it was the only way it was going to go forward. So, I have to say, Chairmen Hyde and Coble, Congressman Rohrabacher and the many interests involved did roll up their sleeves to work with us and work out a compromise."
House backers of the revised bill, including Rohrabacher, have stated that they expect the Senate to return with an identical bill. If the Senate doesn't return with an identical bill, observers expect a major backlash in the House and that the patent wars with which many legislators are exhausted will begin anew. The NIA Picnic was a success. WE hade Games WE meet everyone and hade a great time. We, hade great food. And We had great talks and discussion with everyone.
Page done by Vince Chemist.
Created on Nov. 3, 1999
Updated on November 29, 2005