A letter that I sent

7/3/2007

The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
United States Senate
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-4904

Outmoded Patent Law and Democratic Capitalism

Dear Sir:

     In order to prevent this country from losing ground to foreign countries in terms of technology and low cost manufacturing we must maintain an edge to keep our economy strong.  I feel improvements are needed in our patent laws to allow this democracy to capitalize more quickly on our American Ingenuity.  These ideas would also serve to bring us more closely together as a society and further the spirit and interests of this country. 

Here is what I propose and the related draft provisions:

1.       If you do your research and buy shares of a public company that markets or produces a product that is similar to a new design or new idea that you have you should be allowed to submit a new design idea or uniquely patentable you feel is patentable to them, without having to have them sign a confidentiality agreement, while  they would still by law be bound by a new confidentiality law to be outlined below.

2.      They would be required to notify you of receipt of the idea.

3.      You should provide a legible diagram and why you think it would sell.

4.      They would have a 30 day period to either accept or reject.  Upon acceptance they could pay a fee or more shares as the initial consideration for the idea.

5.      Upon implementation of the idea they would again pay you a royalty based on a fixed industry standard of the gross sales price in the form of either cash or more shares.

6.      Upon acceptance they would agree to take steps within a reasonable period of time (i.e. ~ 1 Year) to patent it.  This would be a new “type” of patent, to be labeled a beneficiary patent.  The structure of the patent would be them as the “owner” and you as the “beneficiary owner”.  The beneficiary owner’s interest would be inheritable or pass down to his heirs.  Even after the patent expires the “beneficiary owner” would have a “royalty” as long as the product is marketed.  If it is stopped and redeployed later the “royalty” would resume.

7.      If they reject they must state why and confirm that they will never use it or benefit from the idea in any way.  

8.      They may also buy a nonrenewable option for the period of 60 days for the purposes of further consideration.  Any other nonrenewable options of this sort further granted by the inventor would have an escalating price making “sitting” on the idea expensive

9.       I.e.: If they reject your idea in accordance with the terms of rejection t

10.  They can neither sell it to others, divulge your secrets nor market it. 

11.  If they rejected your idea and they were contacted sequentially before another firm that you contacted upon their rejection.  They should not be able to later use, make or for a lack of a better word “plagiarize” your idea.

12.  Children, who often have good ideas, could submit ideas with parents or guardians help and signature under terms that would not be nullified and voidable by them, to protect business interests.

Many of us buy products and waste time, money and frustration on them and see how they could be immediately improved in order to save the time, money and productivity of others in this country.  We also see our ideas come to bear in society long after they should have been.  Often the people with the best ideas are often afraid to express them or pursue their interest in; this may help them do so.

Sincerely,

Thomas Paul Murphy

Originally published on 09 10 2010 at http://politics-thomasmurphy.blogspot.com/