[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GAK patents, anyone?



At 01:34 AM 9/9/97 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
...
>-----
>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/terrog.txt
>-----
>
>Petitioning to Make Special Patent Applications Relating to
>Inventions For Countering Terrorism
>
>New patent applications are normally taken up for
>examination in the order of their effective United States
>filing date.  However, the Commissioner may provide that a
>patent application will be advanced out of turn for
>examination if a petition to make the patent application
>special under 37 CFR 1.102(c) or (d) is granted.
>
>On July 31, 1996, Vice President Gore stated that "[i]t is
>imperative that those seeking to prevent terrorist
>activities have all of the tools necessary to accomplish
>their task."  In view of the importance of developing
>technologies for countering terrorism and the desirability
>of prompt disclosure of advances made in these fields, the
>Patent and Trademark Office is establishing a new category
>for petitions to accord "special" status to patent
>applications relating to counter-terrorism inventions.
>International terrorism as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331 is
>"activities that
>(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life
>that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United
>States or of any State, or that would be a criminal
>violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United
>States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to
>intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to
>influence the policy of a government by intimidation or
>coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by
>assassination or kidnaping."
...
Back up just a minute.
Aren't inventions protected if the patent is pending?  If not, why do such
well known companies who undoubtly have savvy legal council produce products
stamped "patent pending"?
Is this just a way of forcing those who take this special treatment to bow
to additional government restrictions?  An action which they would have to
do as if they didn't, a competitor might get the inventors idea patented
before the inventor?
Sounds more like a manner to place certain inventions that are crucial to
"national security" under tighter regulations.
How long before they expand the definition?  Because, if they impose
additional contractual conditions upon the advanced patent, this could mean
that crypto could be regulated constitutionally in the future by regulating
who the inventor could share it with.