SOS Invention USD System Consortium
SOS Invention USD System Consortium

Intellectual Property

Synoptic answers toward resolving an impediment

1 – In the realm of art: nothing prevents it, since copyright (Author’s Rights) is not only valid throughout the world, but it is free.


2 – In the realm of techniques or industrial technologies: what inhibits it is the cost of extending a patent to the world and of defending it in Court, as well as the loss of secrecy.


3 – In the realm of services: Nothing was instated to that effect!  Some tentative service patents were introduced in North America, only to stumble upon the dismissal of the Nations' internal law makers.


Comment: It is a pity that services are denied access to intellectual property, all the more so since they represent over 70% of innovations; namely, the most substantial source of income in so-called wealthy Nations, where industrial labor is irreversibly transferred to poorer countries.


A system that impedes creativity: when filling a patent application, the inventor is asked to claim anteriorities. Why? Because patent law does not provide copyright (author’s rights). Stripped from his initial denomination of creator, the applicant has no choice but to follow the patent's risky procedure, since he does not know either the competitors’ secrets concealed in sealed envelopes, nor the surging technologies during the eighteen months preceding the date of his application. Compounded to the prior, an international extension must be requested (blindly) within the twelve months following the date of his application…  He will then have to absorb the costs associated with the defence of his patent against opponents, added to translation fees, annuities, etc… if all goes well…  Beware!  The patent grants his titleholder the right to prohibit third parties to exploit the patented invention in the countries where it is valid, solely via a legal suit.  Given the foregoing, it inevitably provokes litigations which legal costs are prohibitive and unpredictable that, on the one hand, prevent them from being sufficiently insured and, on the other, exclude from a legal defence the titleholders who cannot afford such costs. Moreover, given its mandatory disclosure at the end of eighteen months, in most cases, it faces unpunished infringements for the same impecunious reasons.


Copyright stimulates creativity: nothing else is asked of the creator of an original literary and/or artistic work than to follow the rules of the art in which he expresses himself. Only then, can his creations be considered as Works of the Mind*, resulting in copyright (Author’s Rights). The author enjoys a global ownership on his work by its mere creation.


Every law governing copyright (Author’s Rights) unanimously state that its function is to ′′protect′′ the expression of a work (the container), not its materialization (the content), if such a work describes a marketable invention. Thus far, the juridical arena settled for this explanation to solely stir the author of a marketable invention toward a utility or design patent and artists, toward copyright (Author’s Rights).

Nowadays, subsequent to the French jurisprudence* affordably obtained by the creator of a literary and artistic work against a title issued by the INPI (France’s equivalent to USPTO), it proved that, without the authorization to reproduce all or part of the creation for commercial purposes (the container, describing the invention), no one could be granted an official title (utility or design patent). This also prevents third parties from reproducing its description (the container)…  Moreover, this system applies to services as well, which, hitherto, were excluded from intellectual property.

* Judgment by the Court of Appeal of Lyons, May 27th, 2004 – R.G. 03/06633 upheld by the Court of Cassation (France's Supreme Court) N/Ref: 05/4797 DCI, July 4th, 2006.


Comments: Although patent includes drawings and original texts, it does not provide copyright!


1 – The laws governing patent (or other titles) and copyright (Author’s Rights) are distinct..


2 – These two laws can complement each other, without confusion.


3 – Much like a laboratory log or a sealed envelope kept in a safe place; a certified letter does not provide any right. It merely proves knowledge of its content.


The essence of humankind is the gray matter of each person. According to the spirit of Articles 1, 17 and 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, any level of progress inherent to creations, hitherto force a simplified procedural application of the right (national and international) in effect, in order to finally render Intellectual Property genuinely accessible to everyone. Free access from each author of concept, service or marketable invention to the initial property on his creation is as much fair and necessary to the preservation of his private interest as it is to the interest of the entire community.  Why this reminder? For the reason that by rendering the patent (temporary monopolistic commercialization title, not a property) solely accessible to the wealthiest, it does not fulfill its democratic vocation for which it is supposed to have been conceived: the respect of individual freedom! This explains the rejection of this title in numerous countries..


Let us first remember what cannot be denied, or:

  • 1 ̊law is intended to serve justice;
  • 2 ̊ the unaffordable cost of the international extension of a patent (called of an invention), as much to SMEs – SMIs as to independent inventors;
  • 3 ̊ litigations that inevitably result from a patent. On the one hand, from his untimely disclosure (18 months after its filing date, in spite of being granted only 2 or 3 years later).  On the other, because of the applicant’s lack knowledge on any third party precedence during these same 18 months following his application, especially when he requests an extension to other countries within 12 months after his application date;
  • 4 ̊ the prohibitive legal costs for his international defence caused by its litigious nature that apply to all inventors, including SMEs and SMIs;
  • 5 ̊ the inequitable translates into, with the exception of multinationals having at their disposal industrial espionage services, the fact that no one can conduct a truly effective search for novelties.  Such a challenging task is far more complex than the traditional research for anteriorities, since it entails finding unfiled innovations (not listed in the Intellectual Property International Catalogue) even if they are already commercialized in some countries.


The approach of the USD Consortium: insteadinstead of barrenly criticizing the patent, as is usual by the majority of its opponents, the USD International Editions Consortium offers a novel and original system based on the existing Law. A system that responds to all of the aforementioned socioeconomic points.


This system is called: Intellectual Passport (CB or IND)

Intellectual Passport Synthesis
Overview of the IPCB 2024 EN.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [1.4 MB]
Anteriority of the creation on the invention
03 - Anteriority of the creation on the [...]
Adobe Acrobat document [666.9 KB]
Note to our site visitors
04 -Notice to those who visit our site c[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [9.1 KB]
Print | Sitemap
© SOS Invention - USD System Consortium