US Inventor Statement
Hearing on Oversight of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
US Inventor submits this statement for the record of the Hearing on Oversight of the United States Patent and Trademark Office held by the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. US Inventor is an advocacy organization of 13,000 inventors, startups and others interested in their success working in Washington and across the U.S. to strengthen patent protection so we can fund our startups to commercialize and license our inventions. We are founded, managed and made up of patented inventors.
We are thankful for the new focus on intellectual property by the U.S. Senate and the re-constituting of this subcommittee for the 116th Congress. It is good to know that Chairman Tillis, Ranking Member Coons, and the member Senators recognize a need for legislation to ensure that our patent system comports with the Constitutional charter to “promote progress in science and the useful arts by securing to inventors…. the exclusive rights to the their….discoveries”.
Having watched the hearing on March 13 and considered the questions and testimony of the witness, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu, it is clear that the subcommittee and the agency lack understanding of how far the current system is from that Constitutional purpose. We hope that these statements will assist the subcommittee in forming a more accurate understanding of how the U.S. patent system continues to brutally fail inventors.
The patent system has always been a game of kings – now it is a game of gods. Only corporations with billions of dollars, thousands of patents, and dozens of lawyers can participate. Garage inventors, startups and small businesses have been removed. The uniquely American ideal that wealth or political influence is not required to secure a patent right has been lost. From 1790 to 2006 any individual could invent something new, agree to share their knowledge with the public, and obtain an exclusive property right to their invention. That was the bargain that led to the astounding progress of technology in the 19th and 20th centuries when America dominated the world in the production of new technologies.
But in 2006 the Supreme Court ruled in the Ebay decision that inventors no longer have a right to exclude others from using our inventions. Instead, a judge will decide who can use the invention and how much they must pay – a compulsory license, antithetical to free markets and property rights. The bargain was broken. No longer does a free market and contract law govern the rights to our inventions, but paid economists and judges subjectively determine the value of our contributions through complex hypothetical economic models. Rather than setting the terms for the use of our property, we are forced to pay millions of dollars to attorneys and economists to rebut the infringer’s economic analysis of the value of the technology they stole from us. The legal costs are prohibitive, often greater than the valuation of the invention as determined by the court, so inventors are frequently forced to abandon their rights, or to settle for a small fraction of the free market value of our inventions, which often does not even pay our legal costs.
In 2011 Congress passed the America Invents Act (AIA) that further damaged the bargain with inventors. The creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has utterly undermined the reliability of our patent rights. Patents are now be eagerly revoked at any time by the same agency that issued them promising exclusivity in exchange for publishing the details of our invention. The AIA endowed this tribunal with the power to cancel any patent at any time, regardless of the true quality or economic value of the patent.
Patents that have been thoroughly examined, reexamined, and validated in Article III courts are being revoked by the PTAB. In fact, at least 227 patents have been held valid in Article III courts only to be invalidated by the executive branch agency1. The PTAB has invalidated a shocking 84% of the 2,242 patents it has reviewed2 . In most cases the basis for the PTAB invalidation is a finding that the patent claims fail to meet the requirements of §103 because “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill [to produce] the claimed invention”. This subjective determination often involving hindsight bias has been applied to numerous patents for groundbreaking and commercially valuable inventions, some of which are discussed below.
In 2018 the Supreme Court ruled in Oil States that patents are not property rights, but instead are public franchises like the right to erect a toll bridge. They ruled that a patent is a monopoly granted by the government, so the government is permitted to unilaterally revoke the patent. No judge, jury, or due process is necessary. Considering that the 2016 Cuozzo decision permitted the agency to disregard Article III rules and precedents, the government also has power to change the terms of the patent (for instance by interpreting the claims more broadly than intended by the inventor in order to invalidate the patent). Thus, the government can grant, modify, and invalidate any patent at any time.
Director Iancu testified to “improvements” in PTAB rules and guidance at the USPTO, but Senator Hirono rightly asked what is to prevent the next Director from reversing those changes? Every presidential election now risks changes within the PTAB that will improve or destroy patent protections. Stakeholders know this and it is fueling millions of dollars in political spending to seat the person they want as USPTO Director. A politically driven revocable public franchise is inherently unreliable, unpredictable and expensive, thus out of reach for ordinary citizens.
During this period of 2006 to 2018, the U.S. patent system flipped from a merit-democratic-property based system to a privilege-elite-franchise based system. The tragedy is that large corporations are inherently non-innovative. There is no substitute for a creative individual exploring for solutions to vexing problems without organizational restraints. Individuals and small businesses have been the source for many, if not most, of the important inventions in history. Our richest source of innovation is vanishing as inventors and investors have come to realize that U.S. patents do not secure the rights to their inventions.
Venue Law Creates Hardship for Inventors
Under the Supreme Court Decision in TC Heartland, inventors must file suit in the headquarters of the company that infringes our invention. When multiple companies infringe, we must file suit in multiple venues. When we live, work, develop, and produce our inventions in a certain district, and even when a large corporation sells knock-offs of our invention in that district, the Supreme Court has said we cannot seek relief at our own local courthouse. Senator Cornyn expressed dismay that Apple was closing stores in the Eastern District of Texas, but this warrants further investigation by the subcommittee. Evidently, Apple believes they are more likely to be held accountable for infringement in EDTX. If the subcommittee will probe this issue in future hearings, they will discover that EDTX is a neutral and fair venue. The gist of the complaint about EDTX boils down to it being more efficient and experienced at resolving patent disputes than other venues. Apple and other large corporations benefit from protracted and costly litigation that fatigues the inventor. Such tactics are less tolerated (though still prevalent) in EDTX. From our perspective, litigation is a last resort because it is often not economically viable. We ask the committee to fully evaluate the concerns raised by Apple and Senator Cornyn, especially the effect of TC Heartland on the ability for inventors to enforce our patent rights.
Efficient Infringement is a Greater Threat Than so-called “Patent Trolls”
The alleged troll problem has been thoroughly dealt with. The Supreme Court in Octane Fitness provided more discretion to district courts to shift fees for abusive litigation. The FTC has stepped up enforcement against frivolous demand letters under the Consumer Protection Act. Several states have passed demand letter reform. And the Federal Rules have raised the pleading requirements. Most of the examples of abuse by patent owners are out of date and had minimal or no negative impact. The Apple example has been addressed above, and Apple is certainly not threatened by patent trolls; with almost a trillion dollar market cap and $200B in cash, they have no problem defending any kind of infringement suit brought against them. The following compares several notorious examples of both types of abuse:
Examples cited of abuse by patent holders3 :
- David Bloom, Ordrx – Ordrx was a Google venture that went out of business due a patent infringement suit. Ordrx suffered 2 district court cases, 3 PTAB cases, and 1 appeal. Google could have easily funded the defense with their hundreds of billions of dollars in cash.
- Austin Meyer, X-Plane – Austin spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending his suit and prevailed after 4 years. There were 2 district court cases and 1 PTAB case.
- Ruth Taylor, Photographer – Ruth was hauled into a patent infringement lawsuit. Rather than settle for $2,500, Electronic Frontier Foundation took her case pro bono and beat the accuser in court.
Examples cited of abuse by infringers:
- Josh Malone, Bunch O Balloons – Josh’s invention was copied by Telebrands who flooded the market with knock-offs. The effort to enforce his patents resulted in 4 district court cases, 8 PTAB cases, and 13 appeals, costing over $20M.
- Alex Sevrinsky, Paice – Alex invented a torque drive system for hybrid vehicles. The technology was successfully license to Toyota, but Ford, Volkswagon, and Hyundai opted to eliminate his primary patent by filing 26 IPR petitions. The dispute led to 4 district court cases, 44 PTAB cases, and 34 appeals and millions of dollars in legal expense.
- Roman Chistyakov, Zond – Roman invented a plasma metal thin film deposition technology used for semiconductors and razor blades. Intel, Toshiba, Fujitsu, GlobalFoundries, Gillette and others gang-tackled Zond with 125 IPR petitions costing them millions of dollars. The PTAB construed Roman’s invention of a plasma “without arcing” to cover prior art plasmas with “a little arcing” and cancelled 10 patents with 371 claims. Zond was growing with over 20 employees at the start. All are now gone.
We are in contact with dozens of more inventors plagued by efficient infringement, which has imposed on them immense financial, personal, and emotional hardship. We urge the subcommittee to hold a hearing to investigate efficient infringement and invite inventors destroyed by it to testify.
PTAB Crisis Continues
We were disappointed to hear Director Iancu urge a wait-and-see approach with respect to the PTAB. While his vision for encouraging invention and changes to the rules are to be applauded, there has been no practical improvement for inventors hauled into the PTAB. There are a host of issues that remain to be “fixed”, and it is far from clear that the scheme can be salvaged at all. We urge the subcommittee to hold a hearing with inventor witnesses to address these serious problems that preclude the possibility of securing to inventors the exclusive rights to our discoveries:
- Inventors cannot afford $450K to defend our patents at the PTAB4
- Inventors cannot invest in research and development when there is an 85% chance of losing our patents in the PTAB
- There is no contingency representation and no investment available for the PTAB, and because of the PTAB, very few will take infringement cases in an Article III court
- The USPTO should never undermine, criticize, or challenge a patent once issued. The purpose of the USPTO is to grant patents, not cancel them or degrade their value.
- PTAB has proven susceptible to agency capture, wherein inventor rights fluctuate depending on who is selected to run the agency every four years, and PTAB judges are hired by regular PTAB customers
- The PTAB cannot be faster, cheaper, and equivalent to district court; something must be sacrificed. In fact, our experience is that PTAB is slower, costlier, and not equivalent to district courts. If the PTAB were a faster, cheaper, alternative to district courts inventors would voluntarily consent to the reviews
- Inventors should have the right to a jury trial to decide the validity of our property rights; it is impossible to truly resolve the question of validity without the due process provided by an independent judiciary and jury to decide factual disputes such as obviousness
- The PTAB has cancelled over 2,000 patents applying the incorrect BRI claim construction; those patents might be valid had they been construed properly
- Even after the claim construction rule change, the PTAB continues to apply the wrong claim construction to proceedings that commenced prior to November of 2018
- Even following the updates to the Trial Practice Guide, the PTAB continues to institute review of patents that previously passed reexaminations and district court challenges (see for example IPR2018-01597, IPR2018-00482)
- Even following the updates to the Trial Practice Guide, the PTAB continues to permit gang-tackling and filing of multiple petitions against a single patent (see for example IPR2018-01008, IPR2018-01009, IPR2018-01010, IPR2018-01011, IPR2018-01012, IPR2018-01014)
- Even following the updates to the Trial Practice Guide, the PTAB continues to allow related parties to file petitions after the one year time bar (see for example IPR2018-01597, IPR2018-01186)
The record as whole over the past 6 years of PTAB operations demonstrates that it is very difficult if not impossible for the agency to handle the weighty responsibility for deciding the ownership of a trillion dollars in intellectual property assets. Rather than waving off these problems in hopes that they have been cured, the subcommittee should seriously dig into these issues and develop a legislative solution that restores confidence in the reliability of an issued patent so that inventors can fully engage their resources and creativity to solving the problems of our modern world.
These are incredibly important issues for inventors and for our nation. We hope that we can constructively participate and convey the interests and experience of inventors of the 50 states to the subcommittee. We are available and at your service.
2 https://docketnavigator.com search for patents shows 1,893 patents with a final determination of “unpatentable” and 2,242 patents with a final determination of either “unpatentable” or “not unpatentable”
4 Average legal cost of post-grant review proceedings through appeal according to 2017 AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey
READ THE REPORT, SENT TO CONGRESS, THE SEC AND THE FBI, ABOUT THE BRIBE-PAYING, SEX TRAFFICKING, ANTI-TRUST LAW VIOLATING, BLACK-LISTING, MONEY-LAUNDERING, INTERN-ABUSING SILICON VALLEY TECH OLIGARCHS THAT STOLE SCOTT'S STUFF: The Same Handful Of Men Steal The Life Work of Each Inventor They Meet – The Silicon Valley Cartel.pdf
The Same Handful Of Men Steal The Life Work of Each Inventor They Meet –The Silicon Valley Cartel
In Silicon Valley there is a Cartel of “Venture Capitalists” who like to call entrepreneurs in, examine their technologies in ‘fishing expeditions’, say “we can’t see any use for it”, copy the technology and launch it themselves; after black-listing the entrepreneur. That is their “playbook.” The New York Times released an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/technology/larry-page-google-founder-is-still-innovator-in-chief.html ) describing how Google’s bosses covertly skulk around at techparties in order to snatch technologies from unsuspecting entrepreneurs. The new start-up hopeful in Silicon Valley must watch for these technology raiders with a cautious eye. Google, in fact, put their lawyer in charge of the U.S. Patent Office and spent nearly a hundred million dollars lobbying to try to “outlaw” small American inventors because Google is so afraid of eventually having to pay for all of the tech it poor all of the tech it poached. Kleiner Perkins, Greylock Capital, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, and 90% of the Silicon Valley ‘VC’s’ on Palo Alto’s Sandhill Road have engaged in this ‘idea rape’ intellectual property theft and clone effort. Facebook, Google, ( How-Google-Steals-Ideas-From-Entrepreneurs.pdf ) YouTube, and other big name companies, were poached from small start-ups that had the original versions up and running when Silicon Valley VC’s just came by and copied them without ever paying the inventors. Then they ran media hit jobs using their Gawker/Gizmodo insider attack tabloids and their control of Google search results, against those that compliained. They also paid lobbyists to manipulate the U.S. Patent Office to try to make the act of invention "banned"! This forces inventors to, both, sue the thieving companies, and file FBI, FTC, Congressional and SEC reports to launch federal investigations against corrupt companies that practice wholesale theft, tax evasion, bribery and other illicit deeds.
THE THIEVES OF SILICON VALLEY
As we've discussed before, just because your hard work and perseverance led you to create something that changes the world, it doesn't mean that you'll get fame, fortune, or the slightest bit of recognition out of it. Infact, some inventors get so little credit that we completely forgot about them in our previous article, and since we really don't like angering the ghosts of people who could probably invent a way to punch us from beyond the grave, here they are.
#6. Siegel and Shuster, Superman's Creators
Robert Mora/Getty Images Entertainment/Getty Images
Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman, the most famous super hero ever, perhaps with the exception of Spider-Man or that kid who changes the channel with his eyes in X2.
Superman can set a TV on fire with his eyes, which isn't as useful.
Debuting in 1938, Superman was an instant success. DC Comics soon followed upthe "man in underpants punches criminals" concept with Batman, and that was it, there was no turning back: Siegel and Shuster's creation had started a multibillion-dollar industry that is still going strong today, spawning toys, T-shirts, and, oh yeah, someof the highest-grossing movies of all time.
Nice one, Siegel and Shuster!
"Take it from us, kids: Work hard, change the world, and you too can seeabsolutely no reward from it!"
But Then They Got Screwed
"Nice one, Siegel and Shuster" is exactly what DC must have said, in a sarcastic tone, when the duo famously sold them all rights to Superman for a measly $130, a check that's now ironically worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
At the time, no one suspected that the guy in blue pajamas that they'd been drawing would turn into a cultural icon -- so when he did, and Siegel and Shuster continued getting squat, the pair embarked on perhaps the longest clusterfuck in copyright history.
The duo spent the better part of their lives unsuccessfully trying to reclaim some part of their creation, only to be rebuffed time and time again. While DC raked in billions from Superman alone, Siegeland Shuster lived the lives of paupers. They were given a yearly pension in the late 1970s by Warner Bros.(which had purchased DC), but only because the studio couldn't afford the bad publicity with a Superman movie on the way.
In 1999, three years after Siegel died, his family successfully won the rights to his half of his creation. A happy ending, right? Nope! This meant dick to Warner Bros., who still refused to pay them a penny, leaving them to fight in court for another 10 fucking years. And the superdickery continues: More recently, documents disappeared from Siegel's daughter's attorney's office and somehow wound up inthe hands of Warner Bros. executives.
#5. Philo T. Farnsworth, the Farm Boy Who Invented Television
Philo Farnsworth, besides having the supreme honor of inspiring a Futurama character, was a serial inventor with a list of credited patents longer than his forehead.
Utah State History
And he had a HUGE forehead.
Among those patents was the one that made television possible: an "image dissector" that could capture images as a series of lines to be displayed electronically. If that isn't impressive enough for you,consider the fact that Farnsworth came up with the idea at age 14, while growing up on a farm in Idaho, and first demonstrated it at 21,in 1927. If that didn't make you feel bad about yourself, it should have.
But Then He Got Screwed
When the young inventor applied for a patent at age 20, David Sarnoff of the Radio Corporation of America took notice. Radio had a pretty cozy spot at the center of the American living room at this point, and Sarnoff wasn't interested in letting that change. And if it did, then he would at least make sure that RCA would be the one getting rich from it.
The David Sarnoff Library
David Sarnoff: Smug magazine's Person of the Year, 1921-1967.
Sarnoff kept Farnsworth tied in a series of legal battles over the next decade using a number of bullshit tactics, like hiring a Russian inventor to spy on him or using said inventor's earlier patents (which they could never get to work) to argue that he had invented TV. At one point Sarnoff just said "Fuck it"and started making TVs without paying Farnsworth. RCA was eventually forced to pay him a one-time $1 million licensing fee, but it wasn'tworth the emotional stress that had left the man crippled.
Then the whole television business was put on hold when the '40s rolled around and the government told everyone to focus on building things that could kill Germans. The final blow came when Farnsworth's patents expired just as World War II ended ... and, what do you know, television sales skyrocketed. RCA, or anyone else for that matter, no longer had to even pretend to give a shit about paying Farnsworth for his invention.
It wasn't until 20 years after his death that the government decided that Farnsworth probably deserved some recognition. No shit.
Following Farnsworth's final wishes, his statue is about to insert somethinginto Sarnoff's anus.
#4. Edwin H. Armstrong, the Father of FM Radio
American Stock Archive / Getty
When is the last time you listened to AM radio? Intentionally? The sound quality is so bad that most of the programming is reduced to things that already sound like shit, like talk radio or a single, never-ending religious sermon in Spanish.
"Either way, I want to do the opposite of pray. ?"
The much superior FM was invented by Edwin Armstrong, who created a system to reduce interference across radio bands in the 1910s. He continued his lifelong vendetta against crappy sound in the '20s, when he came up with frequency modulation (FM) as a way to reduce static. We will now reiterate that he developed all this technology nearly 100 years ago, and it's still present in all modern radios.
But Then He Got Screwed
Things seemed to be going swimmingly for Armstrong for a while, but it was at this point that a remarkably smug asshole came into the picture.
Yes, David fucking Sarnoff from RC-fucking-A proceeded to mess with the life of yet another world-changing inventor. Sarnoff had built his empire with AM radio, so he decided that if FM was the way of the future, then he'd do anything possible to pull a John Connor on that future. Since Armstrong wouldn't relinquish his patent, Sarnoff made sure that RCA not only stopped supporting the development of the new technology, but actively tried to stop it.
In 1937, Armstrong used money from his own pocket to build the very first FM radio station. Another followed, then another, until by the mid '40s a string ofstations known as the Yankee Network were busy convincing everyone of the superiority of FM, just by existing. And then it all stopped.
Armstrong was now forced to rely on his mutant telepathy.
In a dick move of epic proportions, Sarnoff successfully lobbied the FCC to move the FM band to a different place on the dial, from 42 to 50MHz to 88 to 108 MHz. While there were somewhat valid technical reasons for this, a happy side effect for RCA was that it made all of Armstrong's stations instantly obsolete.
It took decades for FM radio to recover. In the late '70s, it finally surpassed AM, but Armstrong was long gone by then, having committed suicide in 1954 by jumping from the 13th floor of his officebuilding, presumably screaming "FUCK SARNOOOOOOFFFF" all the way down.
#3. John Walker, Inventor of the Match
About 500 billion matches are used every year in the United States -- that's the kind of volume you can do when your product sets itself on fire with every use. Before the invention of self-igniting friction matches, people simply used sticks thatcaught on fire when you, y'know, put them near fire.
It was a bad system.
This changed when John Walker, an English chemist born in 1871, began coating sticks in a number of dangerous-sounding chemicals until he happened upon one that, when struck against a surface, erupted in flames. Other self-igniting matches had been tried before, but they were extremely impractical, by which we mean that a lot of people probably lost their eyebrows or worse using them.
Walker's invention caught on fire, both literally and figuratively, and we still keep matches around today, despite the fact that we've all heard of lighters.
But Then He Got Screwed
Walker, unaware of the potential of his invention, worked on these new"friction lights" for about a year, then promptly forgot about the whole thing and stopped selling them. People close to him implored Walker to patent his friction light, since he'd just revolutionized the creation of fire and all. Walker declined, believing that his invention could better benefit mankind without a patent.
Others, however, believed that Walker's invention could better benefitmankind by making them rich.
In 1829, another inventor named Isaac Holden independently came up withan improved version of Walker's friction matches. Like Walker, Holden neglected to patent his idea ... and that's where one Samuel Jones came in. Jones, realizing thatWalker and Holden had effectively created one of the most useful inventions in the history of civilization and weren't making moneyfrom it, decided to do it on their behalf, because he was nice like that.
Almost immediately, Jones patented the exact same thing and began selling it under the name "Lucifers," becausefuck it -- if you're gonna be evil, you might as well go to the source. Soon other brands began offering improved versions of thesame thing, all for a price, of course. It wasn't until they were all dead that Walker was credited for his invention, and Jones for beinga douchebag.
#2. Stephen Foster, the Father of American Music
There are some tunes that you're just born knowing. If we somehow forcedyou to hum a melody right now, chances are that a great number of you would go with something like "Oh! Susanna":
Or "Camptown Races" (you know, the one that goes "doo-da,doo-da"):
Or maybe something more nostalgic, like "Old Folks at Home":
Man, can you imagine if all these songs had been written by the same guy,and that he'd been actively trying to get money from them? That dude would have been richer than Madonna and Bono combined.
Actually, all those songs and more were written by the same person, and he did try to cash in on them -- the keyword being "try."
But Then He Got Screwed
In the 1800s, Stephen Foster wrote classics like "My Old KentuckyHome" and "Beautiful Dreamer" and over 200 other songs. Foster was a professional songwriter before those existed. Seriously:The profession literally did not exist before Foster trailblazed it like a motherfucker.
Of course, the problem with being the first in his profession was thatthere were no such things as "enforcing copyright" or "not screwing over songwriters" back then. Today, Foster would haveearned obscene amounts of money from "Oh! Susanna" alone, but in 1848, he got exactly $100 for the rights to publish the sheet music, while the publisher made$10,000 selling his work.
Even when Foster became a minor celebrity, he continued getting nothingbut pennies for every copy of his work that was sold. For his dozens of hit songs, he saw around $15,000 in royalties in his whole life.In the 1860s, he was dumped by his wife, who had probably had enough of sticking around with this dude who wrote like a rock star, and drank like a rock star, but was not rich like one. He died at the age of 37 after hitting his head on awashbasin, with around 40 cents in his pocket.
His contributions can't be overstated. Not only did he create most of theconventions of popular songwriting as we know them today, but he also demonstrated the need for intellectual property laws by gettingrepeatedly screwed.
#1. Gary Kildall, the Father of the Operating System
Gary Kildall is one of the guys we have to thank for the fact that youdon't need to be a genius to use the ultra advanced computer you are looking at right now to search for porn. Thank you, Gary.
Thank you for the porn.
In 1973, Kildall made life a lot easier for nerds everywhere when hecreated CP/M, a ground breaking operating system for microcomputers (which is what they called any computer smaller than a semi truck back then). The program became the industry standard for the next decade. This guy was basically Bill Gates before Bill Gates was Bill Gates.
Michael Ochs Archives / Getty
"It's cool, I'll just donate a bunch of money to charity someday when I'mall old and prune-faced."
But Then He Got Screwed
Of course, at the same time, Bill Gates was busy trying to become BillGates, and he eventually achieved that at Kildall's expense.
In 1980, IBM was getting ready to launch its first personal computer andneeded an operating system to operate the shit out of it. They first knocked on Microsoft's door, but Microsoft wasn't really into theOS-making business at that point, so they directed the IBM suits to Gary Kildall's company. However, as nerd lore has it, Gary picked that day to go flying (he was an amateur pilot), blowingoff IBM and his chance at history.
DigiBarn Computer Museum
Let he who hasn't blown off a corporate giant to go flying cast the firststone.
Accounts differ on whether Kildall met the IBM suits that day or not, buteither way, the company went back to Microsoft, totally forgetting the whole "We don't make OS's here" part. Not one to missout on an opportunity, Bill Gates turned to local programmer Tim Paterson, who had built a CP/M clone he called QDOS (for "Quick and DirtyOperating System"), bought it for a paltry 50 grand, then turned around and sold it to IBM under the name PC-DOS.
PC-DOS, later renamed MS-DOS, was included in every computer IBM made, and,long story short, that's why roughly 90 percent of you are using Microsoft Windows right now.
Today, Kildall's name is barely known, while Bill Gates will be a household name in the fucking 25thcentury. Most of Kildall's innovations ended up being credited to other people -- and he can't even defend himself, having died in 1994after falling down in a tavern, which pretty much just seems like his luck.
Today's lesson is, if you're an inventor, wear a freaking helmet.
They are the geniuses behind the curtain.
Disney designer Joe Rhode, The Segway’s Dean Kamen, Tech guru Scott Douglas Redmond, Electric inventor Nikola Tesla, Frog Design’s Hartmut Esslinger, WELL founder Larry Brilliant, Robert Moog of sound designfame, Ray Kurzweil, the creator of speech-to-computer technology, and many other innovation leaders, have novel architectures behind theirgenius.
They are fiercely competitive with each other and they each can see theworld and understand more of that world than most of the people on Earth. They can see the future and build the future in ways that wepoor “simple-minded” people have a hard time comprehending. They each have expanded intellect but they have paid for their abilitywith a price. In many of their cases, they have turned out to be “2E Gifted” impresarios who can’t see numbers like the rest of us do.
Does trying to calculate a tip make you break out in a cold sweat? You’redefinitely not alone. Math can be intimidating, to the point where sometimes even the earth's most brilliant scientific minds havetrouble crunching numbers. Let’s take a look at some of these amazing geniuses who build the future but see numbers differentlythan you or I:
Micheal Faraday: It’s hard to say which is more amazing: Faraday’s discoveries or his life’s story. Against all odds, this son of a poor blacksmith overcame class prejudice to become Britain’s preeminent scientist and, in many ways, the father of modernity itself. If you’ve ever pushed an “on” button, you’re in his debt. Faraday built the first —along with the first . He also invented the , laid the groundwork for today’s technology, and helped illuminate the mysterious world of electromagnetism.
Yet, despite all this, Faraday’s upbringing never stopped haunting him. Like most impoverished boys, he’d received little formal education. Hence, Faraday’s math skills In 1846, he boldly proposed that visible light is a form of . But because he couldn’t back up the idea with mathematics, his colleagues it. Enter James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879). Believing the older scientist’s hypothesis, this Scottish physicist & mathematician used ingenious equations to finally Faraday right eighteen years later.
Charles Darwin: Darwin came down with some serious math envy. As a collegiate , he loathed the subject. “I attempted mathematics,” reads Darwin’s , “… but I got on very slowly.” The affluent young naturalist went so far as to invite a to join him at his summer home in 1828. After a few frustrating weeks, Darwin dismissed the man.
“The work was repugnant to me,” he wrote, “chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra. This impatience was very foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principals of mathematics, for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense.”
Alexander Graham Bell: In high school, the Scottish-born inventor of the telephone had a love-hate relationship with math. According to biographer , Bell “enjoyed the intellectual exercise” of this subject, but was “bored and hence careless in working out the final answer once he learned the method.” His grades suffered accordingly. Bell’s mathematical aptitude never improved and, for a scientist, it would remain until the day he died.
Jack Horner: Horner cameoed in the third movie of all time. Over the past quarter century, he’s served as a for all four Jurassic Park films and was just rewarded with a brief on-screen appearance during one of Jurassic World’s raptor scenes. Back in the 1970’s, Horner found the western hemisphere’s first-known . A legendary paleontologist, he’s forever changed our understanding of how these incredible animals and raised their young.
Horner’s success must have shocked his childhood teachers. The Montana native did poorly in school, which he found “extremely difficult because my progress in reading, writing, and mathematics was excruciatingly slow.” Teenage Horner flunked high school algebra, much to his math-savvy father’s disappointment. Horner would go on to flunk college seven times, and in fact, never graduated with a formal degree—which means any jobs in the field he was most passionate about weren't available to him. (Horner, who worked a series of odd jobs as a young man, eventually “to every museum in the English-speaking world asking if they had any jobs open for anyone ranging from a technician to a director.” Clearly, it paid off.)
His educational woes remained a mystery until 1979, when Horner was diagnosed with dyslexia. “To this day, I struggle with the side-effects,” he says. “Self-paced learning is a strategy that helps me cope. Audio books are also a very helpful technology.”
E.O. Wilson: Apart from being the world’s top authority on , Wilson’s a first-rate science popularizer. He’s written dozens ofbestsellers about everything from evolution and biology to philosophy and conservation. One of his offerings—2013’s —reveals a tumultuous personal history with math.
The product of “relatively poor Southern schools,” Wilson that he “didn’t take algebra until my freshman year at the Universityof Alabama … I finally got around to calculus as a 32-year-old tenured professor at Harvard, where I sat uncomfortably in classeswith undergraduate students only a bit more than half my age. A couple of them were students in a course on evolutionary biology Iwas teaching. I swallowed my pride and learned calculus.” While playing catch-up, he was “never more than a C student.”
For numerophobic science majors, he offers this tip: “The longer youwait to become at least semiliterate in math, the harder the language of mathematics will be to master … But it can be done, and at anyage.”
Scott Douglas Redmond, the inventor of internet media distribution, energy storage technologies and numerous social media patents created his own form of visual math and calculus physics calculators to excel, at an advantage, in his product designs. He teaches his visual math system to learning groups.
Douglas Engelbart was the human-computer interaction designer who invented the computer mouse.
Photo: Doug Engelbart Institute
Doug Engelbart is most celebrated for his role in inventing the mouse atthe Stanford Research Institute. At a time when many people are turning to track pads and touch screens, the mouse remains perhapsthe most commonly used peripheral of the past three decades.
But the mouse was a minor piece of Engelbart’s larger project, the oN-Line System. The unveiling of the NLS at the 1968 Fall Joint Computer Conference in San Francisco has been called “the mother of all demos” by some, because it packed video conferencing, networked collaboration, the mouse, hyperlinks and text editing into one presentation. These are now core technologies that make up what we think of as modern computing.
While the mouse proved to be a big hit with most, there was one man who questioned Engelbart’s design — specifically, how many buttons the mouse should have.
“We tried as many as five. We settled on three. That's all we could fit. Now the three-button mouse has become standard, except for the Mac. Steve Jobs insisted on only one button. We haven't spoken much since then,” Engelbart told Wired magazine in 2008. Engelbart had his own way of learning and describing complex math systems.
Engelbart’s mouse was too ahead of its time for him to profit from his idea. His patent expired in 1987, and he never received any royalties from it, according to the BBC.
After his famous demo in 1968, Engelbart remained at the Stanford ResearchInstitute till 1977, when NLS and the Augmentation Research Center (ARC) were sold to a company that was ultimately acquired byMcDonnell Douglas. He retired from McDonnell Douglas in 1989 and formed the nonprofit Bootstrap Institute, now known as the DouglasEngelbart Institute, an organization dedicated to promoting a collective approach to problem-solving.
Ray Kurzweil was the principal inventor of the first charge-coupled device flatbed scanner, the first omni-font optical character recognition, the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind, the first commercial text-to-speech synthesizer, the Kurzweil K250 music synthesizer capable of simulating the sound of the grand piano andother orchestral instruments, and the first commercially marketed large-vocabulary speech recognition.
Kurzweil received the 1999 National Medal of Technology and Innovation, the United States' highest honor in technology, from PresidentClinton in a White House ceremony. He was the recipient of the $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize for 2001,the world's largest for innovation. And in 2002 he was inducted intothe National Inventors Hall of Fame, established by the U.S. Patent Office. He has received twenty-onehonorary doctorates, and honors from three U.S. presidents. Kurzweil has been described as a "restless genius" by The Wall Street Journal and his dyslexia software is highly regarded.
Their novel methods of design, development and deployment are delivering some of the most extraordinary internet and media deployments that billions of people now use.
Stop The Illegal Patent Invalidations Pushed By Big Tech Lobbyists
Thank you for help!. Hundreds of inventors across America made their Representatives and Senators aware of the Federal Circuit ruling that all the “judges” at the PTAB, who've helped large corporations invalidate a few thousand patents in the last few years, are illegal judges because they were appointed unconstitutionally. As a result of your help, Josh Malone and I have meetings set with Members in the House and the Senate the week after Thanksgiving, and I guarantee you that we will turn these Members into allies.
I want you to understand how important our cause is. If an inventor cannot stop a large corporation from stealing any significant, patented invention, then disruptive start-ups cannot take hold. Without disruptive start-ups, a handful of large monopolies end up controlling everything, including speech. Perhaps you've seen this happening.
The solution is the restoration of the rights of inventors. If you have a patent, no entity, regardless of how powerful, should be able to just take the technology. You should be able to license it in an arms-length transaction, or create a start-up based on it. This is your birthright as an American, and this is what created the incentive that made America the innovator to the world.
We have momentum, and we need your help to continue and increase it. I need you to set a meeting for Josh and myself with your US Representative and Senators for the week after Thanksgiving. Please do the following:
Call the offices of your Representative and Senators and get the email address of the Schedulers.
Email them and say that you are a constituent and an inventor (if you're not an inventor, just tell them why you care),
Say something like you are greatly concerned about the alarming rate that important patents are being invalidated and inventors' lives destroyed by judges that the Federal Circuit has ruled illegal by having been unconstitutionally appointed (put into your own words what matters to you, make it from the heart)
Tell them that US Inventor represents you, and that you want your Representative or Senator to meet with Randy Landreneau (pronounced Lan-druh-no) and Josh Malone of US Inventor the week after Thanksgiving.
Let me know that you've done this so I can use your name when I push for the meeting as well.
US Inventor is the only group that is totally committed to restoring the rights of inventors in America. We are gaining steam, and with your help and the help of inventors and others across America, we can win this battle!
Witness Testimony: "...AFTER GOOGLE/YOUTUBE/ALPHABET SENT THEIR VC'S AND STAFF IN TO SPY ON OUR TECHNOLOGIES AND STEAL THEM, GOOGLE DECIDED TO SPEND TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SHADOW-BANNING, SMEAR CAMPAIGNS, WEB RIGGING AND SEARCH MANIPULATION; ATTACKING US IN COMPETITOR VIOLATIONS OF RICO AND ANTI-TRUST LAWS. NOW WE ARE MAKING THEM BANKRUPT AND HAVE GOTTEN INVESTIGATIONS LAUNCHED ON THEM BY EVERY NATION ON EARTH! THE REPORTS AND COMPLAINTS WE FILED WITH THE FBI, EU, AG'S, GAO, FTC, FEC, IG, SEC AND CONGRESS ARE SOME OF THE MOST EXTENSIVE EVER FILED!
"YOU SHOULD HAVE COME TO THE BAR ASSOCIATION'S NEGOTIATING TABLE GOOGLE, INSTEAD OF ACTING LIKE A PACK OF CRIMINALS!".."
SAVE A COPY OF THESE REPORTS AND SHARE THEM: