Inventor Seeks End To Exploitation

Business & Professional Services

Share Tweet

Inventor Seeks End To Exploitation

In what is an unprecedented move in history, a black female inventor files both a Writ of Certiorari and Writ of Mandamus with the U.S. Supreme Court, May 2014 .

Philadelphia, PA, United States / ACCESSWIRE / July 3rd, 2014 / Dorothy M. Hartman who claims invention of the Internet through changes to Telecom which have resulted in information and multimedia access Internet – alleges that her constitutional and civil rights are being flagrantly violated. These changes introduced in her business method proposals to the federal government entitled “Accessing Accessibility” is what created the Information Superhighway or new Internet which debuted in the early ‘90’s leading to use by billions of people online.

The Inventor who has been fighting for her intellectual property rights from the very beginning alleges that because of her race which is African – American and a handicap that evidence and facts have been suppressed and her intellectual property rights “steamrolled over” to maintain the status quo .Whereas she had asked only for appropriate recognition of her rights and appropriate compensation after the government took her ideas to transform telecommunications and gave credit to the fields of Technology and Ecommerce for success of the Internet and no credit to the Inventor – she filed for a patent in 2004.

She alleges that Patent Application No. 11003123 was illegally denied and that she is being deliberately discriminated against to maintain the status quo. Therefore she is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to reopen her case, Dorothy M. Hartman vs. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, opinion handed down in May 2013. Even as the Web (which is the Internet across borders) celebrates its 25th birthday and the FCC decides how the portions of the Internet should be meted out amongst powerful corporations – the true inventor of the modern day Internet goes ignored, and is suffering hardship and abuse .

Hartman says her inventions including the Internet were never about get rich quick schemes or any of that but just a natural progression and evolution of her life. She comes from humble beginnings and never imagined herself as ever having to be in this position . She states that this is about respect, recognition, and fairness. Above all, the recognition that she is a human being and a citizen of this country to be afforded equal rights and protections under the law and that involves the ownership of valuable property. She feels her rights should have been recognized long ago. There are laws that state that the government or no one else can just take property, even proprietary information or intellectual property , without compensating the individual from whom the property is seized. Hartman alleges that the federal government seized her intellectual property and accomplished it’s illegal but regulatory taking of her property by denying her a patent on the invention. If it seizes property for the Public Good, then it must declare Eminent Domain. Ignoring a person’s property rights whether tangible or intangible is not constitutional.

If the government having declared itself the de facto owner of the Internet as it is now deciding whether to call it a utility or meting it out for the richest corporations to essentially run it – then it should first deal with the inventor . If the invention is too large for a patent to be awarded – then that should be stipulated by law and not some made up excuse of “indefiniteness” by the Patent Office . The Patent Office’s case to deny a patent is not a prima facie case and in true legal terms – its indefinite argument does not hold water. The Internet is not indefinite because its use is limited by the use of machinery . Both hardware and software are needed to access the Internet. Therefore by definition, it is not indefinite. It is distinctly different from the prior Internet or what was commonly referred to as the “Internetting Projects” which phased out in 1989. Even if the argument of indefiniteness could be legally made, the Inventor is still owed compensation by the federal government because of its theft of her proprietary and legal information which it used to transform and revitalize a failing telecommunications industry – and has refused to acknowledge or compensate her. Hartman is retired Science Teacher, Inventor, and Entrepreneur .For those who find it difficult to believe that a woman who is not an employee of Silicon Valley could claim invention of the internet read more at her blog referenced below.

Visit for more information.

Contact Info
Name: Author : Minerva
Email: [email protected]