About this site

Who is writing this?

For now, I write as The Inventor — a byline, not a disguise. This is a story — consider it a work of fiction, inspired by true events.

What I'll tell you: I'm an independent inventor. I filed a patent application for an oil-well-pump instrumentation system, specifically a rotation-sensing doohickey. I set out to achieve the American dream, but ran headfirst into the nightmare reality of the US patent system.

I did what you're supposed to do — I invented a new thing. I filed the patent application. I paid the fee. I did the hard work developing the product — which was then stolen (more than once). Not "stolen" in the loose sense most inventors mean — when a competitor comes up with a clever workaround. I mean taken from me and handed to someone else, all because of a dysfunctional system.

Who is the target audience?

This site and all of its contents are aimed squarely at Congress and the USPTO. I am petitioning my government by exercising my First Amendment rights. This is my story, and (as you can clearly see from the comic twist), I am telling it from my point of view. My intent is not to impugn the integrity of any individual or corporation. As I see it, my experience is not isolated, and I firmly believe what happened to me is a story worth telling. I don't mean to cross the line, and if anyone feels that I have, please tell me and I will promptly correct or clarify. If I am just flat out wrong on something, also please tell me.

The corporation, Even Bigger Big Corp

I touch on this in Dispatch No. 11, but need to be clear about this here. The current corporation bought this mess. They had nothing to do with the events that I discuss and opine about throughout this site. I hope they will take an interest in this matter and demonstrate that they value and respect intellectual property. I also realize that it is naive and wishful thinking on my part. Still, I am open to a dialogue and would be thrilled to post a happy ending to this story.

But this site isn't about getting a corporation to do the right thing, although it'd be nice if they did. This site is about calling attention to the flaws in the system. That's not unique to this story or any one corporation.

The goal

I'd like to say the goal is to right this wrong, but the reality is the game is stacked against me. The USPTO runs a system that does not reward innovation. It rewards literal plagiarism (if you don't believe me, stick around, I'll prove it — see Dispatch No. 5). I'd love it if everything just worked out, but the truth is I will have to go deep into debt and sell my idea, just to break even. This system is horribly broken.

My true goal is to call attention to this in a light-hearted fashion. Hence the ridiculous cartoons. You should realize the outlandishness of the cartoons is meant to drive the point, not to attack any individuals or entities. The point is the system needs fixing.

I could be you… or I suppose you could be the next me. If you've ever had an idea and thought you should get a patent, this is for you. Know that this part of the American dream is just about dead.

If you are in Congress, only you have the power to restore American innovation.

The system is broken

1. 

   01

   When life gives you lemons

   I could be bitter, or I could make the best of it. This site is my version of making lemonade. My misfortune may help make a positive change.

2. 

   02

   A better lemonade machine

   Just lemonade, or can I create something better? I want to improve the system, not just make a glass of lemonade. I don't have high hopes my story will end well, but maybe it can be used to fix the system.

3. 

   03

   Innovation is great until it's taken

   You're witnessing a much bigger problem. This is an analogy. This is a story. But stuff like this really happens. Maybe without the physical altercation, but the sentiment holds.

Who else is this for?

By the time most inventors get to the point I'm at, they are deep in debt. They've sold their souls to lawyers who would never allow their clients to do what I am doing. This is objectively the stupidest thing I could do. You might say it's… strategically unwise.

The problem with the typical lawyer-ly advice of shut up and let us play the game is that no one else knows what happens. That silence means the system can continue extracting value from folks like me.

The world needs to know, and I'm not sure if anyone will listen. But if someone out there can effect change by hearing my story, that's a win. A win that I need and that is probably a more achievable goal than solving my specific predicament.

Integrity

Yes, the integrity of the US Patent Office is at stake. In my view, it has tolerated plagiarism, sloppy examination, and possibly corrupt or conflicted examiners (not saying that's what happened here, but there were some interesting settlements recently). The USPTO has the ability to do the right thing and restore its integrity, or it may simply choose to continue to abuse and ignore the actual inventors it claims to champion.

Consider this a work of fiction…
sort of

Most good stories have some root in reality. There's a lot of truth and facts here, but for the sake of story telling I may deviate into the realm of speculation… or fiction, if you will.

• Opinions are mine — and they're opinions. Nothing here is legal advice (if you need that, hire a lawyer, ideally before you need a PGR). More than that: this entire site is my personal opinion, commentary, and interpretation. When I describe a filing as "misleading," "deceptive," "a misrepresentation," "calculated," or "sneaky" — or when I guess at why someone did something — that is my subjective read of public documents, not a statement of fact about anyone's actual intent or state of mind. I can't see inside anyone's head, and I'm not claiming to. Reasonable people can read the same record and disagree, and I might be wrong.
• I'm not accusing anyone of a crime. To be unambiguous: nothing on this site is an allegation that any identifiable person committed a crime or any other legally actionable wrong. Loaded words I use for effect — "stolen," "theft," "pirate," "plagiarism," "fraud," "lie," "corrupt," "shenanigans," and the like — are everyday, rhetorical shorthand for how this situation feels to me as the inventor who lived it. They are not legal conclusions, criminal accusations, or findings of fact. (As I note elsewhere, "plagiarism" isn't even a cause of action.) I'm not accusing anyone of patent infringement, or fraud on the USPTO, or bribery, or any other offense. These are all my opinions. Things look suspicious, but could be completely innocuous. I'm just openly opining on those suspicions.
• Facts come from the public record; the adjectives are mine. Statements about the proceeding are drawn from public USPTO filings and other public documents, which I link so you can read them yourself and reach your own conclusions. The characterizations of those facts are my commentary. If I've gotten a fact wrong, please tell me — I will correct it promptly and visibly. I'm genuinely striving to get this right.
• No names. As best as I can manage. It's not my intention to publicly name anyone or any entity. But I have to show you the actual public documents otherwise you'd never believe me. The underlying documents are public and I can't redact them, but I am making every effort not to tie my satirical interpretation to specific, named individuals. The contents of this site are purely my opinions and interpretations. None of this should be considered a legal interpretation or directed at any individual or their corporate overlords.
• My fight is with a system and an outcome, not a vendetta. My frustration is with one examination, with the perverse incentives at the USPTO, and with a process that left me no way to respond in real time. I am not attacking anyone personally. In my experience most examiners are sharp, diligent, and professional, and I say so throughout. Criticism of how one matter was handled is criticism of the work and the result, as I see them.
• The cartoons are caricature and satire — not depictions of real people. They dramatize and exaggerate the situation for effect. They are not photographs, likenesses, or factual depictions of anyone; the masked figure is an invented character standing in for an abstract idea, not an accusation against a specific individual, and the scenes (rituals, daggers, masks, collusion) plainly never happened. No reasonable reader should take any of it literally.
• The Examiner — I refer to the examiner as "they", not in the confusing singular gender pronoun way, but because more than one examiner bears responsibility for this. The individual examiner, the supervisor, the Art Unit Director, all the way up the chain. They all bear responsibility.
• Obviously satire. I shouldn't have to say it, but this site is clear satire built on real events. My depictions of people are a mix of my opinion and an AI's interpretation of that opinion. Is the examiner really a slob? Almost certainly not — I'm sure they're a perfectly nice, professional person; it's the work product, as I read it, that I'm reacting to. Does anyone in this story actually run around in a mask? Of course not. But this is how the experience felt to me, and that feeling is what the cartoons exaggerate.
• Right of reply. If you believe I've been unfair, inaccurate, or unkind, contact me (see below). I will publish a correction, your response, or both. That offer is sincere. I didn't get that opportunity during the examination, but I'm offering it here for you. Really for anyone.

Journalistic integrity

I never thought of myself as a journalist. If I did it was in the context of that old Three Stooges bit where they try to sneak in to something. But I think Journalism in the traditional sense is exactly what I am doing here. I found a flaw in the system that is being actively exploited — and that no one is calling attention to. I'm journalizing that here.

If you know me, you'd know I am a big proponent of free speech. That's a big and loosely unrelated story. If you ever catch me at a bar (or anywhere else), ask me to tell you that story.

I'm usually the guy correcting folks when LinkedIn or Twitter bans them. That's not free speech. You're free to say whatever, but a corporation doesn't have to host your content. It's the government that can't punish you for speech it doesn't agree with. The flip side is that speech soliciting the government to alter public policy is also protected. The ability to express your concerns publicly in the effort to change public policy is something America takes uniquely seriously. I'm not saying we are the only country that does that, but we hold it pretty dear. Heck, we fought a war about 250 years ago over that.

The content of this site reflects my investigation of the events and facts as I see them. If I got anything wrong or am misleading in my accounts, please correct me. I'm trying to maintain my journalistic integrity here. I am happy to post a rebuttal, explanation, or other commentary. I can't imagine anyone would want to do a guest post, but send me your ideas. If it serves the public discourse, I'd happily post it here, as long as it's relevant. You don't even have to be nice to me, just civil. I put a comments section on each of the dispatches. You can put your uncivil comments there. Hopefully I won't have to use editorial discretion.

† My fair use comment: Did you know this episode Three Little Beers was filmed on what would be an oil field, 25ish years later? I don't know if that's a real fair use comment, but it's a great episode. I also don't know if that is an officially sanctioned video, but it's a classic episode. Also, it's not the only time they used this bit. I've done something akin to this more than once myself. ↩

AI-Assisted Content

You can tell by the em-dashes that I'm making heavy use of AI in creating content for this. Heck, the cartoons are obviously AI-generated. The irony isn't lost on me that I'm calling out a big corporation for what I see as plagiarism, while making heavy use of what is basically a corporate-sponsored plagiarism machine. I'm trying to tell a story here, and hopefully this will be an effective use of that technology and not just AI Slop. I've heavily proofread and guided the content, so yes, it is AI-adjacent, but not blindly produced slop. I wrote most of this, but had a lot of help cleaning it up. It's entirely possible something slipped through, so feel free to let me know if there's a random hallucination somewhere in here. I would like to get this right, so any feedback/corrections would be appreciated.

A standing invitation

I welcome constructive criticism — about the patent, the strategy, the writing, the cartoons, all of it. The best way to reach me is the discussion thread on each dispatch, LinkedIn, or email at inventor@postgrantreview.com.

Yes, I know I am an idiot for pursuing this. Tell me why I'm wrong — I'm listening.