If the Internet has been declared a public utility , will eminent domain be declared and the Inventor be compensated for the illegal confiscation of her intellectual property
Not likely as the true Internet 2 Inventor’s rights are still being ignored
Hartman alleges that her method was used by the Federal Government in 1990- 1991 to Commercialize or upgrade the previous structure to produce the “Information Superhighway” or what we know today as only one name , the INTERNET. Although her ideas were used to revolutionize the way the world does business and are responsible for what has become a highly successful telecom industry that rivals no other – Ms. Hartman has never been recognized or compensated for the major role she has played in the success of ecommerce and telecommunications . To the contrary thus far her right to Due Process regarding the use of her intellectual property without recognition or compensation is being violated .
After confiscating her intellectual property 25 years ago and refusing to even acknowledge her , the government used her ideas to invent a better internet .Building a better internet is just like building a better mousetrap or any other kind of invention . Does the government have the right to transfer credit of the invention to others and grant the opportunity to prosper to others without compensating her for the loss of her property ? These are constitutional questions . For the 8 years that the United States Patent and Trademark Office held the patent application of the Inventor – it tried 7 times to change its own patenting laws and the U.S. Congress tried at least 3 times to change laws such as to deny this patent . Finally changing the law from First to Invent to First To File which did not bar Hartman’s patent rights as she satisfied both criteria . The Patent Office became more creative in using manipulation to break patent laws by using malfeasance and fraud alleges the Inventor .
The reason of “Indefiniteness” used as a red herring to detract from the truth that the Internet is just to great . The Inventor states that this is no excuse to disrespect her rights . She is not responsible for the fact that the world’s most powerful government has steamrolled over the rights of a disabled minority for 25 years while the Internet grew to enormous proportions . She had asked for $35,000 twenty-five years ago to jump start her own telecommunications company .
” I have had other inventions go down the “rabbit hole” in the Patent Office and end up going from me to massive corporations , alleges Inventor . I did what I was supposed to do and that is take steps to protect my intellectual property . It is the government taking the property without compensating me . Fraud , among other things is the new Jim Crow . Had I been another color or ethnicity , there is no way this blasphemy would be occurring . The fight for justice will go on . ”
The Supreme Court recently upheld on February 23 , 2015 the Federal Appeals Court May 2013 decision which appears here .13-1070.opinion.3-6-2013.1
“Claims a novel business method whereby the computer with its communicable devices is the focal point of the business and transactions occur online or in cyberspace. Herein cyberspace is referred to as that virtual space within which transactions and exchanges occur and that exists between the interconnections of the communicable devices with remote websites . Cyberspace is infinite and thus an infinite number of transactions is possible. A website (W) is herein referred to as pages that are received from the host or recipient computer and that display the monitor of the user’s computer once the connection is established . See Figs[.] 1-6 .”
Another criticism is that there is no distinction between where the inventor’s invention begins and the “other” ends . This is simply not true as the Internet based on the Arpanet and other “nets” before 1990 is distinctly different from today’s Internet . Generally when an invention is tied to the use of machinery as this invention is as hardware , software , and an Internet Service Provider is necessary to use the invention – this precludes “indefiniteness” in patent language. The fact that Cyberspace is potentially infinite does not mean that the Internet is infinite or an indefinite invention . It is defined – if not confined . It is limited by the availability of the hardware and accessories in order to operate . This argument by the Patent Office does not make sense , argues Hartman . Further hers is a domestic patent application not an international one . The government has already given away this intellectual property which originated in this country to others so that a relatively few who had already become rich could become richer. Giving away for free what could have been sold would have placed the country on par with energy producing nations and may have circumvented the trade imbalances and other problems now plaguing the economy. Having access to Information and access to consumers would almost have been as precious as energy .
Hartman alleges that this intellectual property was misappropriated from the start with racism , greed, and oppression playing lead roles from the start . The Internet now having morphed into the World Wide Web is now separated by geographical and political boundaries with other countries now having their own , period . She also alleges that she was put through undue pressures and that her original claims and disclosure were altered without her permission . In 8 years within the Patent Office , she was not given the opportunity to properly amend or edit her claims .Additionally evidence that she was the true and valid inventor in the form of original documents signed by government employees was simply ignored Learn more at her Blog at http://www.TelecomStraightTalk.com and http://www.abfyjewelers.net . Further legal action has not been ruled out as this is major injustice which should have been corrected by the Commerce Department which is the parent of these government programs long ago .