Evolution of the U.S. Patent System

Published on: 10 January 2019 Last Updated on: 08 August 2019
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:

Content Rally wrapped around an online publication where you can publish your own intellectuals. It is a publishing platform designed to make great stories by content creators. This is your era, your place to be online. So come forward share your views, thoughts and ideas via Content Rally.

View all posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Related

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
Clash For Dr Disrespect And Ninja Over Multi-Streaming

Its A Clash For Dr Disrespect And Ninja Over Multi-Streaming: Report

Tyler "Ninja" and Herschel "Dr DisRespect" have had a clash on social media over multi-streaming. Dr DisRespect appeared to be insulting those who multi-stream on different platforms in a tweet. For those who don't know, Tyler is one of the most popular creators who actively simulcast on various websites like Twitch, YouTube, TikTok, and Twitter. Dr DisRespect is known for his boisterous antics on the stream, and his social media posts reflect his on-stream personality. In a post on X, formerly Twitter, he seemed to be calling out creators who simulcast on multiple platforms, suggesting that those who multi-stream do it because they are not good enough for one platform. "If you have to multi stream, that’s because you’re not good enough for one platform,” tweeted Dr DisRespect on X. This happened to have worked, and Tyler came up with a reply, wasting no time. It was clear to the community that Dr DisRespect's post was aimed at Ninja. SypherPK, another streamer who multi-streams, tried to spark a playful exchange between the two creators by tagging Ninja in a reply. Ninja was one of the leading creators who openly multi-streamed. He ended his partnership with Twitch in September last year to stream on other platforms such as YouTube and Kick. Additionally, the renowned Fortnite star was one of the most vocal critics of Twitch when they introduced policies that prevented streamers from simulcasting. After the Twitch CEO's announcement at TwitchCon that the multi-streaming policy would be reversed, Tyler returned to his old platform as a partner. Given his public support for multi-streaming in recent months, it was inevitable that Dr DisRespect's comments would provoke a response. Read Also: HBO Max Decides To Take Away 4K From Ad-Free Subscription Plans Elon Musk To Introduce New Products That Will Challenge YouTube And LinkedIn

READ MOREDetails
Taylor Swift Is Topping The Charts on The U.K. Board With '1989 Taylor's Version

Taylor Swift Tops U.K. Charts with ‘1989 (Taylor’s Version)’

Taylor Swift successfully fends off the challenge Oasis and BTS' Jung Kook posed to her album re-release. She is holding on to the UK chart for a second week with 1989 (Taylor's Version). Being the fourth in Swift's re-recording projects, 1989 Taylor's Version is squeezing past The Masterplan of Oasis. It is enjoying a new chart life because of its 25th anniversary. Released originally in 1998, The Masterplan brings together b-sides from the Britpop Era. Its first three albums Definitely Maybe (1994), (What's The Story) Morning Glory? (1995) and Be Here Now (1997). These were led-off by "Acquiesce" which is a fan favorite. By the middle of the week, The Masterplan makes it into the chart at No. 2 which is also the original peak position after its release in 1998. It is a bestseller at the UK's latest chart cycle. The freshest of the lot is the is Jungkook's Golden from BigHit Entertainment. It completes the podium at No. 3. It has become the highest-standing album from a member of BTS with the best position for a solo Korean artist. The news has been confirmed by the Official Charts Company. Another track from the album, "Standing Next To You" comes in at No. 6 on the national singles chart. This becomes his fourth U.K. top 10 for the year. English pop artist Cliff Richard brings in his 48th U.K. top 10 album with Cliff With Strings- My Kinda Life (EastWest/Rhino). It stands at No. 5. While Johnny Marr's Spirit Power: The Best Of Johnny Marr (BMG) that debuts at No. 7. This also marks the 5th U.K. solo top 10 appearance of the ex-Smiths guitarist. The U.K. Singles Chart rings in Beatlemania once more with Now And Then (Apple Corps) which is powered to No.1. Fans of Fab Four are feeling the rush of nostalgia. The 2000 career retrospective 1 makes a come back to the top 40 at No. 21.Gregory Porter (Christmas Wish) ranks at No.14 via Decca, Caroline Polachek (Desire I Want To Turn Into You at No. 23 via Perpetual Novice) and Van Morrison (Accentuate The Positive at No. 39 via Exile) debut at top 40 for the first time. Learn More About: Meta Launching Free Subscription For Ad-Free Experience In Europe Elon Musk To Introduce New Products That Will Challenge YouTube And LinkedIn

READ MOREDetails