Meeting of the Control Board of the knee considered as the trial of the application to the final judgment. We have an application-back — the applicant or his representative, there are judges — members of the Supervisory Board. Not only her accuser. And too bad that no sweats that feature the prosecutor takes on the judge. As a result, we have prosecutors empowered to judge!
The situation can be corrected without inflating states: one of the members of the Supervisory Board should be instructed to present the views of industry expertise. Then the judge will formally balanced and therefore more objective. You may notice that this is a formal aspect of the matter. But the form, as is known from the dialectic, is not indifferent to the content … Notes on compiling applications for discovery, approved by the State Committee are, of course, a fundamental document for those who claim no discovery. Alone a number of requirements causes sincere bewilderment.
Section «General Provisions, paragraph 3:» The opening must be proved, ie. E. Theoretically justified … «Therefore, the discovery of really existing, but not scientifically explained, the opening can not be considered? But the history of science is replete with examples where almost set, a previously unknown pattern is widely used, gave impetus to the development of new directions in science, although many whirligig was not explained theoretically (as quoted paragraph — not proven). For example, such world-famous discovery, as «x-rays», «Cerenkov luminescence,» did not have a very long time. If they were, these discoveries have been made in our country, following the instructions, they recognize the discoveries would be impossible. After all, they are «theoretically justified»! In other words, if there is evidence of the theory — so much the worse for the facts.
But even today it is quite possible that the theory explaining the new phenomenon may not appear for many years. Does this mean that the discovery of really existing and proven experience, should not be recognized?
Further, paragraph 4: -Do not be taken into consideration … statements that contradict scientifically substantiated and experimentally confirmed in the world of science principles … «But science has repeatedly denied his own unshakable seemingly foundations,» experimentally proven «. Science does not recognize fetishes! Peli not attack against the «science-based» principles, science stops. It’s funny, if not sad that the document aimed to promote a qualitative change in the scientific opinions, in fact, stands for that, God forbid, those views have not changed!
Do not look at whether the State Committee on Inventions and Discoveries divide these more closely to their instructions? Few would argue with the fact that the main task of all regulations is to further the development of innovation, promote technological progress. But this premise is true, so to speak, as a whole. If you look closely at some specific rules, it is often to be found «encouraging the opposite.» This directly relates to the 3 existing provisions, in which the term of payment of royalties to the inventor limited to five years from the start of use of the invention.
Here is a typical example showing how this item "It protects «the right to the inventor.
For many years the country suffered woodworking enterprise with the production of parquet boards. And domestic and foreign machine worked so that most of the tablets obtained from the chip or ends. For such a marriage one way — on a wood engineer Kostopil house-building plant (Rivne region) K. Galkin invented a machine that is completely ruled out marriage. The machine is manufactured, tested, put into operation. Productivity doubled, marriage disappeared. The inventor received any machine inventor’s certificate (№ 89567). The plant cleared the introduction, royalties paid to the inventor, which, of course, one company was small.
Many years later, after the use of the first prototype machine has begun commercial production of the invention. Machines to manufacture dozens of styles a year, and after a few years the economic effect of their application approached million rubles
The maximum reward? Alas! After all, according to the statements of the first introduction it was long before the serial production of machine tools. The case analyzed the court. Guide Kostopil plant presented a certificate that once took place only a preliminary development, testing and refinement of the invention in the singular, so to speak, a copy of that plant — not machine-tool company that mass adoption of the invention did not exist and could not be. But the court based on the claim. 113 Provisions recognized that the introduction was that five-year period has long expired, and, therefore, the author, a pensioner who gave the promotion and dissemination of the machine, so useful for the economy, ten years of life, expect more than that.
Can I assume that justice is done?
But often even the author does not know that the introduction of his invention someone somewhere had to report. As the author can demonstrate that the introduction of often fake that it can, and does not it? Defendants usually in such cases say that the invention of modes, used two months or even three. and then, after the reconstruction of the shop (site), the use of stopped.
Item 113 of Regulation clearly against the interests of the inventor. And this was already posted, but as long as the situation does not change, it is necessary to return again and again. The five-year period of payment of remuneration should be increased at least to the validity of the patent, it has the first 15-20 years. Maybe even for the Soviet inventor must remove all restrictions in time, leaving only limited to the maximum amount (if necessary).