The Problem

A decade ago, the Obama administration enacted the “American Invent Act” (AIA). The law allows any private party to challenge a patent by paying the government, thus opening the floodgates for patent challenges. Patents, susceptible to semantic arguments about wording, face an astonishing rejection rate of approximately 80% according to the goverment’s own statistics. This has greatly added to the many difficulties already facing inventors.

Essentially, the America Invents Act has provided infringing companies a way to file an Inter Partes Review full-well knowing that the patent office rejects patents 80% of the time in these instances, once inventors file infringement lawsuits and leave themselves vulnerable. The Fortune 500 has even coined a name for this, calling it “efficient infringement.” It means it is more efficient for companies to peruse the patent office looking for technologies to steal, confident the inventors can’t afford the legal battle, especially in view of the high rejection rate under the new legislation.

The reason law firms are leery about taking patent infringement cases on contingency is that such lawsuits can be very complex and costly. Judges themselves, influenced partly by media depictions, often view patent holders as suspect. In this respect, the litigators related a number of instances where judges approached them with suspicion, adding to the uphill struggle of being an independent inventor protecting one’s intellectual property.

This has made the journey of an inventor, which was already arduous, even more intense. More seriously, this trend within the legislative landscape has called into question the actual fairness and viability of protecting one’s inventions. The challenges imposed by the American Invent Act, aside from biased perceptions, underscore the need to address systemic issues faced by patent holders within the existing legal framework.

There’s another factor at play known as the “not invented here” (NIH) syndrome. Note that this has nothing to do with patents. When an inventor creates something truly innovative that could have a positive impact on solving an important problem, the usual scenario is to approach a company. Assuming receptivity, the executives, usually the president or vice president, express interest. However, lacking the in-depth technical knowledge themselves, they leave the detailed evaluation of the invention to their engineering staff.

The engineering staff is inclined to avoid accepting the invention due to the NIH syndrome. Acceptance would be admission that they should have invented it and also reflects negatively on their capabilities to come up with such brilliant ideas. They thus prepare a negative report, based on various flimsy objections appearing insignificant to an untrained mind. Unfortunately, because the executives cannot technically evaluate the merits of such objections, they invariably defer judgment to the engineers and the proposal is politely rejected. This has been a repeated pattern for decades, quite apart from any difficulties with the patent system.

On a similar note of complication, the process for patenting brings its own share of headaches. All patents demand maintenance fees administered on a periodic basis to the federal government. These fees increase substantially at each renewal, which happens about every four years. For a single patent, an inventor would need to pay $800 at the 3.5-year mark, almost doubling to nearly $1,504 at the 7.5-year mark; then doubling again at 11.5 years to $3,080. This cost continues well throughout the life of a patent.

Curiously, this financial commitment seems disproportionate to any value that the government provides. Actually, the government does not even deliver value for those fees but even revokes the patents in a huge 80 percent of cases, whenever challenged by an accused infringer in an inter partes review.

It is important to acknowledge the fact that Nikola Tesla is one inventor who is largely considered a favorite among many people. No doubt, he was a genius. One man who came up with the AC electrical system which has remained in operation unto this present day, and still remained largely the same over a century later, which is fantastic. However, little or not so well understood is that Tesla’s performances were in times with relatively no complexities of life as compared to what 2025 represents.

Tesla licensed his work to Westinghouse Electric in 1888 and immediately struck up a lasting friendship with the founder, George. George’s wise decision was to license the superior and much-valuable system of Tesla. Tesla was to be paid well, and success was mutual.

Fast forward to 1933, my personal favorite inventor, Edwin Howard Armstrong pioneered FM radio. Amazingly, many, like myself, thought FM was a product of the early 1960s only to find its roots in the 1930s operating in the 42-50 megahertz region. Armstrong having built a fruitful relationship with the president of RCA, David Sarnoff through licensing his patents faced an unexpected hurdle.

Despite their longstanding association, when Armstrong presented FM to Sarnoff, he viewed it as a threat due to the prevalence of AM receivers and the need for an entirely new system. Instead of licensing, Sarnoff proposed purchasing the patent. Despite Armstrong’s desire for a licensing arrangement, Sarnoff declined.

As Armstrong was already a millionaire, he insisted on a licensing deal similar to their prior agreements. Sarnoff refused to budge, and Armstrong struck out on his own. He built radio stations in New Jersey, licensing his technology to other manufacturers, and the operation was successful, though smaller than RCA. Recordings of some of the very first high-fidelity radio broadcasts from the old FM band at 42-50 megahertz from that era can still be heard via social media.

It was during this period that Sarnoff led the RCA effort in bringing television to market, working on it for roughly a decade. Then came the twist when RCA went to the US government’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to receive frequency bands on which television signals could be broadcast. The FCC ordered that RCA use a method called amplitude modulation, or AM, for sending out the picture, while using frequency modulation, or FM, for the sound, a combination they called a “composite signal.” The new process would allow for the transmission of both on one frequency.

While this may seem complex, for those who are familiar with the old-school standard definition TVs, the interference between picture and sound will be remembered. If the fine-tuning dial was adjusted poorly, squiggles would come on screen and synchronize with fluctuations in the audio. This odd phenomenon showed that picture and sound were interconnected; the result of AM and FM transmission methods chosen by the FCC.

The issue was controversial, since the government would license only one frequency per TV channel. It seemed to be an apparent financial bonanza to Edwin Armstrong, the inventor of frequency modulation, or FM. Then came a cruel irony when Sarnoff turned against Armstrong due to his personal interest in television licensing.

Instead of recognizing and appreciating Armstrong’s work, Sarnoff decided to steal his ideas. Just as often happens in today’s modern disputes over patents, Sarnoff’s engineers filed patent applications with the claim that they had independently created FM technology. Sarnoff said such methods were different, but they were, for all intents and purposes, identical, differing in wording only.

Stealing Armstrong’s work was not enough for Sarnoff. When Armstrong sued for patent infringement, Sarnoff counterattacked to break Armstrong financially. Sarnoff had the FCC change the FM radio band from 42-50 megahertz to 88-108 megahertz. The outlandish rationale for the switch was that sunspots could interfere with transmissions; an assertion absolutely devoid of any scientific merit. Although this baseless argument was all the non-engineer Sarnoff presented, either the FCC bought this or more likely succumbed to bribery.

This change in frequency made the radio receivers that Armstrong had manufactured, and those by his licensees, obsolete. All FM stations operating at that time became obsolete, resulting in huge financial losses for Armstrong. He was unable to survive the economic setbacks and the prolonged court battles; he tragically committed suicide. All this happened despite the fact that Armstrong, out of patriotism gave the U.S. military free use of his FM patents during World War II. This act of patriotism was partly responsible for our defeat of Germany, because their tanks used AM communication, which were susceptible to interference and jamming.

This sets the historical trend against patent owners, from Nikola Tesla to Edwin Armstrong, showing how companies usually did very little to support, if not abuse, the inventors. Although Tesla and Armstrong lived some of their years concurrently, roughly 45 years came between Tesla’s invention of AC and that of Armstrong’s work. And within this timeframe, companies showed the tendency to screw over inventors when fair compensation could be so easily handed out.

It should be added here that it was well within the companies’ powers to compensate the inventors handsomely, creating a symbiotic relationship. In this way, not only would the inventors be happy and eager to provide more inventions, but the companies would also have had first refusal on further inventions. But this trend never took hold, and if anything, the America Invents Act signed into law by President Obama seemed to move in the opposite direction.

Coming to independent inventors, the word “independent” itself carries more significance in overcoming some of the major challenges of the world such as energy-related issues. Traditional education lays out a pathway and conveys information to students without their actively having to seek it out. The big minus in this approach is that it tends to condition people to think within boundaries.

When individuals learn through a prescribed curriculum, their thought processes become constrained by the established norms and logic of that specific field. Although some independent thought remains possible, the freedom to explore alternative perspectives is limited by the structured education received. This limitation becomes particularly apparent when facing complex problems.

Contrary to the myth of accidental invention, independent inventors such as myself tend to identify problems from a different perspective. Instead of discovering solutions by happenstance, we tend to challenge conventional wisdom by recognizing that the problem is often mischaracterized. Properly characterizing and describing the problem opens up whole new avenues of possibility for the independent inventor. This is how an independent inventor differs from others in the way of problem-solving.

The answer now arrives all but effortlessly, but this ease is a problem. The inventor has to be hyper-vigilant due to a governmental ban on the patenting of solutions that are “obvious.” This injunction appears to suffer from a basic flaw, as the obviousness of a solution is only retrospectively self-evident after the solution has been discovered. Seeing the problem differently is at the heart of revolutionary solutions; a trait independent inventors possess.

Think about Barry Marshall, the Australian doctor who reversed conventional wisdom to find that the bacteria, and not stress or diet, causes ulcers. When his sceptical and critical colleagues doubted it, he managed to prove this theory by actually making himself ill with the bug. Proving the credibility of an idea shouldn’t have to go that far. And neither should professionals. Logic, reason, merit; these could all be sufficiently proved without merely a reliance on majority opinion.

In the realm of electronics, where the essence of phenomena like electrons remains unseen, differing theories abound. Some assert electrons flow, while others argue for the wave nature of electricity. Both perspectives hold merit, highlighting the complexity of the subject. This diversity of thought should be embraced, fostering a more open and inventive approach to scientific exploration.

It’s all about seeing a science you can’t even see (electronics) in a different way. The more intuitive you get with this and the more self-education you get, the more you’ll have answers to questions other people maybe didn’t even ask. Independent inventors are the unsung heroes who solve technological problems that society is facing, especially in fields such as energy and medicine. Yet, it seems the system in America is designed to discourage rather than promote this kind of innovation.

Most companies, in the prevailing environment, either reject such suggestions outright or, worse still, fall prey to the “not invented here” syndrome. Many that appear keen often co-opt ideas, take out their own patents, and, when sued, invoke labyrinthine legalese in an apparent game easily rigged by fraud. This confronts the essence of free thought and enterprise without which solutions of intractable problems are to be found.

Moreover, the government itself, through programs like the Small Business Innovation Research program, solicits solutions from the private sector. Unfortunately, the solicitations reflect a deepseated problem. The people who write these solicitations do not know what they do not know. Rather than recognizing their ignorance and asking open-ended questions, they try to specify solutions and, in so doing, limit the creativity of independent inventors.

For instance, a typical Request for Proposal (RFP) in the case of solar energy is very myopic. The government asks very specific questions because they really think that they understand the problem, when actually the heart of the problem is not understood. The narrow scope defines what is considered acceptable, instead of allowing the inventors themselves to explore and define the paradigm for addressing broad challenges, like solar energy in heavily shaded areas. This situation with the government is not different from what many industries frequently succumb to in the same patterns of asking wrong questions and then pursuing misguided pathways.

Well, the LEDs we easily take for granted, central to the functionality of smartphones, flat-screen TVs, and ubiquitous in traffic lights, all the way through to a worldwide commons, owe their existence to the ingenuity of another one of my favorite inventors, Shuji Nakamura. An unlikely tale off the beaten path, Nakamura, working alone in Japan, approached a chemical firm, Nichia, with a proposal for a better red LED. Having gone through a frustrating nine years starting from 1979 to 1988, which he affirms was filled with setbacks, he did not give up. “Surprisingly, instead of being fired, Nakamura, undeterred, returned to Nichia’s CEO, obtaining a commitment for blue and green LEDs on the condition he received $30 million.".

That audacious move, aided by faith from the otherwise disappointed CEO, finally paid off. If not for Nakamura’s persistence, today’s smartphones would have picture tubes and resemble big, odd-shaped boxes that needed to be carried with both hands. His story was one of persistence, not just over failure, but also against conventional wisdom.

Gallium nitride was questioned for use in LEDs, contrary to conventional wisdom. Giant companies such as Union Carbide went as far as to lobby against nitride semiconductors for LED production. This opposition, now seen as misguided, serves to underscore Nakamura’s departure from conventional paths. In 1985, major LED manufacturers such as Siemens and Panasonic offered underwhelming solutions. The $65 Siemens blue LED was so dim I had to cup my hands to see it in a brightly lit room, and Panasonic’s pathetic offering was a green LED couched in a dark blue molding.

Nakamura’s revolutionary approach was to adapt semiconductor-manufacturing equipment so he could show a proof of concept. From the omnipresence of his inventions on streets and in TVs to the headlights of Tesla vehicles, the impact was revolutionary to society. The white LED developed by Nakamura ingeniously combined a blue LED with a yellow phosphor. This phosphor, excited by the ultraviolet content of the blue light, would emit a convincing white light 20 times more efficiently than traditional incandescent substitutes. In short, Nakamura’s saga represents the success of a lone thinker who fought against the status quo and prevailed against all odds. But it also reflects the systemic barriers that such innovators face in the current system.

Today, there is a pejorative term for independent inventors who come up with game-changing solutions, such as a better solar panel; they are called “disruptive technologies.” This pejorative suggests that the accepted business model is being disrupted, and that the status quo is preferred over change.

This resistance to revolutionary technologies is one of the causes of the perception that technological change has been slow, as evidenced by the sentiment that “We were promised jet-packs and we got flip-flops,” or that we live in the Flintstones, not in Star Trek. The unreceptiveness to revolutionary technologies is due to not wanting to incur development costs and because incremental technologies offer superior marketability. Therefore, major innovations like more efficient internal combustion engines and high-efficiency solar panels might only be diffused when there is a revolutionary change in the infrastructure of the industry concerned.

Looking at the words used in these definitions, a contrast is apparent. Whereas the term “disruptive technology” is a pejorative label for the positive act of innovation, the negative act in question should be considered “efficient infringement.” This contrast juxtaposes the industry’s view of these activities: the former as a legitimate pursuit of progress, the latter as covert theft and fraud. The situation is indeed a proper “David versus Goliath” scenario in which independent inventors are really left to the mercy of an “every man for himself” environment.

Whereas most people believe that truly ingenious solutions can only be created by the most brilliant minds, one must recognize that intelligence is yet one of the many factors involved, not the only one. The difficulties independent inventors face are set within a complex web of industry dynamics, resistance to change, and contrasting terms used to describe positive and negative contributions to progress.