Evolution of the U.S. Patent System

by

10 January 2019

News

Patent

Patents have actually existed since the 1300s when an inventor was granted a right to a monopoly. While the specifics of the grants, the complexity of the issuing process, and the number of patents that exist have greatly expanded, the principle idea of the right has not changed significantly. However, we now have a robust industry of patent attorneys like Tampa’s The Patent Professor, a profession you probably wouldn’t have stumbled across in the Medieval times. Read more below about the evolution of the United States patent system to what we know it to be today:

The Colonial Period:

In the Colonies, there was no set patent process or a centralized patent office, since each colony operated essentially as a completely individual territory under the British monarchy. However, each colony issued “patents” on a case-by-case basis, with the first being issued to Samuel Winslow by the Governor of Massachusetts in 1641. Winslow was granted a 10-year monopoly on a particular method of harvesting salt.

Adoption of the US Constitution:

In Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, there is a provision that specifically addresses the protection of intellectual property. This was the first official mention of a patent in US documentation and signaled that the United States would support innovation with legal tools that allowed term-limited “monopolies” on registered inventions.

The Patent Acts:

1790:

3 years after the adoption of the US Constitution by the newly formed United States, the Patent Act of 1790 was passed. It gave limited protections, a short, 14-year term for protection, and was found to be fairly unsatisfactory to most concerned citizens of the new country. It would only last a few years before being replaced.

1793:

In 1793, the modern definition of a patent was introduced, and the application process was simplified. This Patent Act stood for over 50 years and granted over 10,000 patents before being updated once more.

1836:

In 1836, a new Act was passed that formally established the United States Patent Office, whereas previous patent applicants had to appeal directly to the Secretary of State (and in the first Patent Act, to the Attorney General and Secretary of War as well). In addition, it created a database of all existing patents, available in public libraries, so that people could research before submitting their application to ensure that it was a truly original idea. Finally, it created the option for patent holders to extend from 14 to 21 years in some cases.

Depression and Anti-Patent Sentiments:

In the 1890 Depression, and again during the Great Depression, US citizens held an exceptionally negative attitude towards patents, and these sentiments led to the establishment of antitrust laws. These laws created limitations on the monopolies that major corporations were able to form and gave power back to the smaller players of the industry.

The Modern United States Patent and Trademark Office:

The Patent Act of 1952 created the current patent system as we know it today. It added additional stipulations for the final approval of a patent, such as ways that it could be infringed, explaining how it is useful and non-obvious, and other details that are still present in the application process to the USPTO.

Patent law is constantly evolving, and as more patents and new technologies develop, you can be certain that they will continue to evolve, even more rapidly as the rate of innovation increases.

Read Also:

I enjoy writing and I write quality guest posts on topics of my interest and passion. I have been doing this since my college days. My special interests are in health, fitness, food and following the latest trends in these areas. I am an editor at Content Rally.

View all posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related

The CEO Of OpenAI Joins Microsoft Adding Further To The Controversy

Sam Altman, The CEO Of OpenAI Joins Microsoft Adding Further To The Controversy

In a chaotic boardroom coup at the OpenAI on Friday, Sam Altman, the company's CEO, was overthrown. He was also the company's co-founder; however, news came in of him joining Microsoft after he was fired. Microsoft is one of the biggest stakeholders of OpenAI, with an investment of $13 billion. The balance of power is a significant move in the age of Artificial Intelligence, especially with the integration of new technology over the decades. https://twitter.com/ericzhu105/status/1726668924652335188?s=20 After Altman was fired, another co-founder of OpenAI, Greg Brockman, joined the company Microsoft. Brockman was the president of the OpenAI company, thus influencing how OpenAI will function in the future. After Altman was fired, Mira Murati took the position of interim CEO of OpenAI but will return to her original role of chief technology officer at OpenAI. The ChatGPT company will hire Emmett Shear as the interim CEO, leaving her position as the former CEO at Amazon's streaming service Twitch. Satya Nadella, the Microsoft CEO, posted on the social media platform X about their hiring of Sam Altman at Microsoft. The two ex-colleagues and co-founders of OpenAI, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, will lead an advanced AI research team at Microsoft. The ChatGPT organization, OpenAI, significantly changed the industry, especially with the introduction of artificial intelligence. The balance of power changed, and with the acquisition of Altman and Brockman, Microsoft had the upper hand. https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1726518259896201296?s=20 Altman visited OpenAI's headquarters and wrote, "First and last time I ever wear one of these." along with posting a photo on social media platform X, previously known as Twitter, where he is holding a green guest badge which was connected to a labeled lanyard "OpenAI"! As per the rumors in the industry and certain reports by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, the board that fired Altman is worried. They are trying to reconsider the decision and have second thoughts. They wanted to re-engage and discuss with Brockman and Altman to return, but the ball is out of their court now! Read More About: Pinterest Launched A New Education And Information Hub For Creators YouTube Premium Introduces International Price Hikes After Cracking Down Ad Blockers

READ MOREDetails
Apple Settles Lawsuit for $25 Million Over Family Sharing

Apple Settles Lawsuit for $25 Million Over Family Sharing Feature Misrepresentation

In a recent development, tech giant Apple has agreed to pay a substantial $25 million to settle a 2019 class-action lawsuit, accusing the company of misrepresenting its Family Sharing feature. Despite Apple denying any wrongdoing, the settlement addresses allegations that the company falsely portrayed the capability to share app subscriptions within family groups. Apple’s settlement case is making headlines following Facebook. The lawsuit contended that a significant portion of subscription-based apps, a growing segment on the Apple platform, couldn't be shared among designated family members, contrary to the representation made by Apple. Court documents revealed that these apps were exclusively available to individual users who downloaded and subscribed to them. The court documents emphasized, "The vast majority of subscription-based apps, which is a growing percentage of Apple Apps, cannot be shared with designated family members." This revelation challenges Apple's previous assertion and sheds light on a potentially misleading practice. Furthermore, the documents highlighted that despite the awareness that subscription-based apps did not support Family Sharing, Apple continued advertising these apps' features. This advertising strategy may have led millions of consumers to download subscription-based apps, assuming they were shareable within family groups, only to discover otherwise after making payments. While settling the lawsuit, Apple maintains its denial of misrepresentation or wrongdoing. The $25 million settlement resolves the class-action suit, concluding the legal dispute over the Family Sharing feature. This development raises questions about the transparency of subscription-based apps on Apple's platform and the need for clearer communication between the tech giant and its users. As the landscape of app usage evolves, consumers may become more vigilant about the representations made by tech companies, ensuring that advertised features align with actual functionalities. This settlement serves as a reminder for consumers and tech companies to maintain transparency and accuracy in representing features and functionalities, fostering trust in the dynamic world of digital platforms. Read Also: Time Magazine Names Taylor Swift The 2023 Person Of The Year This Is Why Taylor Swift Sends Kelly Clarkson Flowers After Every Re-Recording Selena Gomez Gets A Kiss From Bestie Taylor Swift In Latest Birthday Instagram Post

READ MOREDetails

Major Regulatory Approvals for Cross Border Acquisitions

Cross-border acquisitions can be impacted by a wide range of factors, so it is essential to develop a comprehensive framework for dealing with all the aspects of the acquisition process. Such a framework was presented last year at the Spring CLE ACC event. The presentation was put together by Jason Rabbitt-Tomita and Carrie LeRoy, two partners at White Case, one of the most prestigious international law firms. Their framework included all aspects of such a transaction from the processes and the timing, to due diligence, intellectual property matters, employment considerations, dispute resolution, and tax structuring. However, the largest segment of the presentation was focused on the major regulatory approvals required in international acquisitions, as these are usually the most time consuming and the most challenging processes in cross-border transactions. Antitrust : In regards to the antitrust laws meant to promote fair competition for the benefits of the consumers, cross-border deals can be subject to numerous reviews in different jurisdictions. As such, the buyers must be prepared to engage the Antitrust counsel and present the worldwide turnover of the target company. It is essential to identify possible antitrust risks and concerns and be prepared with prompt solutions CFIUS : The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States can put major obstacles in the path or a cross-border acquisition, especially when it comes to tech companies. The major focuses of the CFIUS reviews are threats, vulnerability and risk profiles. In other words, they analyze whether foreign acquirers can exploit vulnerabilities or cause harm in matters of national security. The CFIUS approval process usually consists of consultations and other preliminary work, an initial 30-day review, a 45-day investigation, and a 15-day presidential review. Regulatory approvals in the People’s Republic of China : At the moment China is the biggest competitor of the California tech scene, but Chinese investors must jump through a lot of hoops to play in international markets. SAFE – The State Administration of foreign exchanges is in charge of all foreign exchange matters in China. Chinese purchasers must register all outbound investments to convert RMB to foreign currency and make outbound transactions and remit foreign currency. This registration is dealt with after dealing with MOFCOM and NDRC. MOFCOM – China’s Ministry of Commerce of their local offices must approve foreign investors for certain industries such as telecommunications, media, education, theme parks, and a few others. NDRC – The National Development and Reform Commission must approve all outbound investments of more than US$300 million from China. This approval can easily be gained with merely a formal filing, as long as it does not involve sensitive countries or industries. Other regulatory approvals : As we already mentioned, each country can require different regulatory approvals for foreign investors, so it is essential to analyze from the start whether or not the transaction can be consummated under said country’s legislation for the target industry. It is very common for multinational companies to close certain countries separately. For example, transactions in India often delay worldwide transactions and are often signed separately. This can also happen in France, where employee consultation requirements call for binding offers, specifically created for the French subsidiaries. Read More : Things To Do In Israel That You Must Know Finding The Right Moving Company

READ MOREDetails