Inventor filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court docketed May 21 , 2014 seeking that the USPTO comply with current patent laws regarding Internet .
Philadelphia,, United States - - November 5, 2014 —
Inventor , Dorothy M. Hartman says that Net Neutrality is a myth because there still exists the question about the true nature of intellectual property rights regarding the Internet . The determination of the Internet is not clear . It appears Federal Government owned but a public utility to be distributed by rules determined by the FCC to private or public agencies . The CEO of ABFY SELLERS GROUP alleges that ideas leading to the development of Internet 2 were her ideas but thus far her intellectual property rights have not been recognized .
She claims to be the inventor of INTERNET 2 which debuted after 1990 and is responsible for accommodating billions of people online unlike earlier versions of the Internet . See graphic above which shows the tremendous explosion of data packets ( reflective of usage ) being carried by Internet Providers after 1990 . Before 1990 and the Internet that now exists , the prior Internet or “internetting projects” had a different structure and a different group of participants . Its usage was limited to availability to relatively few individuals with the capacity to go “online”- mostly the academic community , MCI MAIL and Dow Jones News Retrieval . Read more about this Inventor’s take on Internet history and development here First to Invent and First to File Being ‘ online ‘ is not just a function of a smartphone , personal computer , or a tablet – i.e . connective devices that enable one to access the Internet . The actual Internet is compiled of networks of these communicative devices interacting with each other in virtual cyberspace , with data transmissions being carried by Internet Service Providers .
The fact that the Internet of today even exists or what some refer to as Internet 2 is a result of her creative ideas being submitted to the U.S. Federal Government alleges this inventor and entrepreneur . She alleges that the U.S. provided funding to reduce the ideas to practice first nicknaming it the “Information Superhighway” – later it was known by only one name , the “Internet”. She received no funding or support to launch her own prototype telecommunications services business – but rather was dismissed and given no opportunity to profit from her own proprietary information. The inventor alleges that these direct changes to the telecom industry are the reasons for the revival of the “Internet” – the prior art had become defunct by 1989 . The success of the Internet of today is the results of the government taking ideas Hartman’s Ideas Conveyed to Federal Government 1990 submitted by Hartman and applying them to the industry which has resulted in the billions on line today causing huge profits to technology and ecommerce .The inventor claims that the government took her ideas and made them the government’s ideas. The government in turn gave credit for her ideas and opportunities to prosper to those already in the field of telecom technology before 1990. It provided no funding , credit , or opportunity to her .
Her grievances remain with the government not with successful companies , although she resents the lobbying against her as she alleges that it was the input of her ideas that made the field rich and successful. She maintains that historical facts and evidence show that the previous ideas and structures of the former Internet 1 based on the Arpanet had become defunct by 1990. Patents are awarded for transformation of a thing from one state to another not on the size of the invention . The government has had access to her information for 25 years . Her start up business was not given the opportunity to grow along with the rest of the start ups that burgeoned when the Internet took off. The Inventor believes that a patent was denied to her because of malfeasance in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and that its argument for reasons based on “indefiniteness” is not a reasonable or legal argument. She alleges that there is evidence to support this and that she is being intentionally discriminated against because of her minority status. Hartman alleges that her ideas were reviewed by numerous government employees including employees of the Small Business Administration , Pa. Dept. of Commerce , and the Benjamin Franklin Technology Center and ultimately the National Science Foundation . The National Science Foundation hired Merit Networks and others to reduce the ideas to practice .
The Inventor alleges that the National Science Foundation decision to commercialize the NSFnet ( a resting place for the retired telecom networks based on the Arpanet ) is what revitalized telecommunications resulting in INTERNET 2 which debuted after 1990 and that her introduction ideas on Commercializing Telecom and the potential benefits of doing so were adopted and used . Hartman contends that the Opinion handed down by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals was erroneous because it denied a rehearing on her allegations of fraud by the USPTO. The Inventor alleges that Federal Rules of Evidence among other statutes have been violated . Hartman has filed a Writ of Mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court docketed May 21 , 2014 seeking that the United States Patent and Trademark Office comply with current patent laws . There still exists serious violations of her Constitutional and Civil Rights . The Inventor has no designs on going after successful companies who have enriched the economy , however ignoring her rights is wrong . After all the Internet has produced more jobs and inventions than any other invention in history . At the very least she should be acknowledged for her contributions and compensated for the loss of her intellectual property which has brought trillions of dollars into the economy .
For more information about us, please visit http://www.telecomstraighttalk.com
Organization: ABFY SELLERS GROUP
Release ID: 67338