Patent Office Silly Excuses for Illegally Suppressing Extraordinary Technology

The previous article, Citizen Initiative Aims to End War on Extraordinary Technologies, revealed the secret illegal Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). It began in 1994, early in the administration of President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, and ended late in President Obama’s administration, only because the USPTO was busted and exposed in the news media. President Trump did not inherit the illegal USPTO program from President Obama, but he did inherit an ongoing hostile environment toward extraordinary technologies.

In response to that illegal program, a group of Denver citizens, including me, recently proposed a new law that was first suggested in POWER UP – How to Create a Solution-Based World in 100 Days. The article included the full text of the proposed law and a sample ballot question that could appear in any of thousands of cities around the U.S. Maybe President Trump should put one of those crime scene ribbons around the USPTO and finally investigate who created the illegal SAWS program.

Why bother trying to create a local patent office? Kate Goudry, a patent attorney, described why the secret USPTO SAWS program was unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. In summary, she explained that it was illegally secret, did not follow any law or the rules of the USPTO, was vague, and arbitrarily targeted specific categories of patent applications. Her analysis includes a partial but lengthy “hit list” of patent applications.

Again, they included:

• “Anti-global warming devices or any other device operating at the global scale”
• “Motor, power plant, or other device which is self-sustaining (perpetual motion) or appears to violate the laws of chemistry or physics”
• “Claiming prevention or curing of diseases which were previously considered impossible to prevent or cure.” [i.e. cancer, AIDS and HIV, Alzheimer's, etc.]
• “Applications which would potentially generate unwanted media coverage (i.e., news, blogs, forums)”

The last category is downright silly. Instead of celebrating breakthrough inventions through the news media, the USPTO obstructed or delayed applications for such inventions to avoid unwanted publicity. The USPTO website finally admitted that the SAWS program existed. Not surprisingly, it tried to explain that the program was meant to ensure “quality patents”, even though SAWS was clearly illegal and unconstitutional.  It stated, in part:

“The Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS) program is one of many practical, internal efforts that the USPTO has in place to ensure that only the highest quality patents are issued by the Agency.” It goes on to state, “This quality assurance program applies to all pending patent applications that disclose potential SAWS subject matter, which typically represent a very small percentage of all pending applications in an average month, usually around 0.04%.”

Sounds reasonable, right? However, that is what you call, “damage control through brazen spin” or “D.C. – B.S.”, if you know what I mean. The entire patent office explanation of the SAWS program never mentions the secret or other illegal aspects of SAWS.

That “.04%” seems like no big deal compared to the hundreds of thousands of patent applications submitted to the USPTO every year. But that .04% equals about the same few thousand total patents held by Nikola Tesla, the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, Hedy Lamarr, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Amazon, Elon Musk and Tesla Motors.

Many of their inventions were viewed by top scientists, at the time, as violating the laws of physics or not useful. Those are two of the reasons the USPTO uses to deny patents in general. And yet, those legendary inventors have changed the world many times over with electricity, aviation, computers, communications, software, electric cars and online shopping, just to name a few.

If the USPTO’s reason for having the secret SAWS program was so simple, why did the USPTO not add that on patent application forms? Why was it not in the Manual of Patenting Examination Procedure, on its website, and in correspondence between the patent office and targeted patent applicants? Because it was illegal, and they did not want anyone to find out.

Like any other government agency, the USPTO is very political. It is subject to influence by special interests and politicians doing favors for their wealthy campaign donors. Even though it claimed to end the SAWS program in March 2015, suppression of extraordinary technologies continues because of politics and other regulations, just not in the same illegally secret way.

The consequences of obstructing life-saving inventions are far reaching and arguably worse than terrorism and other crimes against humanity. Does that mean all the employees at the USPTO are terrorists and criminals? Of course not. Most likely they are just trying to keep their job by following orders from the top.

Nevertheless, the SAWS program had tyranny and oppression written all over it. Therefore, to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence, “…it is our right, it is our duty, to throw off such Government crimes, and provide new Guards for our future security through the protection of life-saving and planet-saving extraordinary technologies.”

Buckminster Fuller, another legendary inventor and visionary, said, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” That is what the Denver ballot initiative is all about – inventing a new patenting model for protecting extraordinary technologies. It could achieve more in less time and at less cost than the Green New Deal, simply by opening the floodgates of cleaner energy technologies.

No one has attempted to create a local patent office before because the commonly stated reason is, “Federal law preempts state and local laws in the area of patents”. Well, the next article blows that reason out of the water.

Coming soon:

• “Why Citizens’ Local Patent Office Trumps Federal Preemption”
• “How a Trump Tweet Could Upstage Green New Deal”
• “Are Al Gore and Democrats Profiting from Climate Problems They Cause?”

Until next time, POWER UP!