WITH NO WAY TO TEST S.1145 -- IT WILL DOOM THE U.S.

HOW THE “ALLIANCE FOR PATENT FAIRNESS” PLANS TO USE S.1145
TO GUT AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY FOR THEIR OWN CORPORATE GREED

What EVERY product developer knows
BUT how Congress is clueless about this legislation

NEVER -- EVER RELEASE AN UNTESTED PRODUCT!

By George Margolin – Professional American Inventor
PATENTOR@GMAIL.COM

Would any sane adult willingly fly across the continent or the ocean -- in an airplane– THAT HAD NEVER BEEN TESTED OR FLOWN WITHOUT PASSENGERS?

More to the point – would any member of Congress KNOWINGLY do so? I don’t think so, because that would be putting their lives on the line before the airplane had been “Crash Tested” with no passengers aboard – many times and long before human life is endangered in that product.

But THAT is exactly what some members of the Senate are attempting to do by blindly demolishing and deforming the very patent system that has made America the Technological Wonder of the world!

You can be absolutely certain that not one of the members of the ironically titled “Coalition for Patent FAIRNESS” would ever consider producing their own products -- from a computer chip to a computer program – in the doomed-to-failure manner that they are attempting to force the Senate to do with their multi-million dollar lobbied Patent “Reform” Bill – S.1145.

What the Double Speak Patent Fairness Folks would not dare to do to their products, they are paying lobbyists millions to cripple American technology and America itself.

Since many of these “Patent Fairness Folks” are product developers and manufacturers – they ALWAYS will follow a procedure something close to what we’ll outline below. ALWAYS! Otherwise – their products would never work and never create a market.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO DEVELOP A WORKING PRODUCT
OR VALID LEGISLATION

THESE METHODS ARE FOLLOWED FOR VIRTUALLY ALL NEW PRODUCTS

1. The concept is first defined, designed, researched, rendered, then a computer and/or a feasibility study is produced.
a. If complex – each component is separately tested, improved and vetted again, before being incorporated into the overall design.
b. After which the entire design is vetted for its composite operational cohesiveness, integrity, and chance of success in the marketplace.

2 Once stage 1 is completed – a rough feasibility model is designed and tested as in stage 1. This is usually an “engineering” prototype which is designed to function in the manner the final product will function – but without the size and complexity constrains that will later require engineering of parts for combined functions, size and reduced cost.

a. In whole or in part – each and all components must work together properly and its targeted economic aspects of cost and possible sales price vs. market acceptance will be considered.

3 After this design vetting and component testing – an engineering prototype is designed to look and function as the final product is supposed to look and work. But its parts will not yet, be designed for size, function and cost savings.
a. This will be built and tested in the closest approximation of the expected environment and function.. And if large enough – for people, as an example -- test pilots or drivers, or clever programmers or their equivalent – will do their best to test and break it before the final design will be produced, so as to avoid failures later down the production sequence. In software this would be an Alpha copy.

4. Once all this has been completed – a pilot production design is created and a small number of pre-production devices are made, sent out to knowledgeable and competent potential users to use and abuse before the final production design is finalized and accepted for production. In software this would be called a Beta copy.

5. Only after all of the above provide enough confidence that the product will work as expected and can be produced at the intended cost for the intended marketplace – is a full production-ready design signed out. And only then is the actual production process set up; parts ordered from vendors who have also gone through the above design, test, batter, break, redesign and finalize procedures.

6. AND ALWAYS -- IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT IF THE PRODUCTION DEVICE FAILS TO FULFILL ITS INTENDED FUNCTIONS IN ITS INTENDED MARKET AND CANNOT BE RECTIFIED AND DOES NOT GAIN MARKET ACCEPTANCE WHICH WILL PAY FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT – AND/OR COST OF MARKETING – IT CAN AND WILL BE WITHDRAWN!

NONE OF THE ABOVE ARE BEING DONE WITH THE DRASTIC AND
NON-RECALLABLE SENATE “PATENT REFORM ACT” S.1145.


This is where the so called “Fairness” patent reform proponents depart and diverge from their own mandatory development practices and are attempting to short circuit safeguards to coerce Congress to pass the ill fated S.1145. This is a short sighted attempt to disrupt and deform our 218 year, evolved, tested and WORKING Patent System.

While THEY (the Patent “reform” promoters), can easily recall a faulty production run – CONGRESS IS NOT SET UP TO DO THAT. Judge Paul R Michel – Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of appeals for the Federal Circuit, on Monday January 28, 2008, characterized his concerns of the attempt to pass Senate Bill S.1145, by stating that once Congress acts, it could take between 15 and 50 YEARS to reverse destructive changes to our patent system. That would be close to 3 GENERATIONS to rectify, reform or repeal this complex legislation –IF it could ever be rectified, repealed or withdrawn. And this would would be decades too late to keep it from destroying American Technology.

If it passes – LEARN MANDARIN CHINESE –WE’LL ALL NEED IT!