Hartman alleges that her business method Accessing Accessibility was used by the Federal Government in 1990- 1991 to commercialize or transform the preexisting structure to produce a seamless integrated system known by only name, the internet. Although her ideas have revolutionized the way the world does business and are responsible for what has become a successful telecom industry - Ms. Hartman has never been recognized or compensated for the major role she says that her invention played in the success of e-commerce and telecommunications. —
After, what she alleges is the confiscation of her intellectual property 23 years ago without authorization or compensation to 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. 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 patent laws. Hartman alleges in an effort to deny her a patent. Ms. Hartman says that if she were not Black, female, and handicapped this scenario would not be occurring - had she been of a different ethnicity she feels she would have been given the opportunity to grow her own business. She is grateful that there is a Supreme Court and she is hopeful of a just outcome.
Because of the size of the Internet, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has tried to use indefiniteness as a reason for the denial of a patent with the following claim being given as representative of indefiniteness:
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.
The 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, says Hartman. Further hers is a domestic patent application not an international one.
From the 1987 Internet which was phased out to the one CERN website shown in 1989 to the millions of websites as represented by the Peer 1 APP representation of an Internet Map from CNN, Money - these changes were the result of this woman's creativity and ingenuity. "This is no way to treat the Inventor of one of the world's greatest inventions . The Country can and should do better. An apology would not be bad either. Today's Internet was new in 1993," says Hartman. Her influence has been felt for the past 23 years. What remains to be seen is whether or not she will be credited or compensated for it. Usually if the government confiscates one's property, it is required to declare Eminent Domain and provide appropriate compensation.
Release ID: 22089