SHARE: Share

It wasn't a fluke that America led the world in innovation for 200 years. It began with the revolutionary concept of giving the common person ownership of what he or she invented and patented. The mission of US Inventor is to restore that right, which has been so significantly reduced from recent legislation and judicial actions.

What we've accomplished and will accomplish depends on the combined efforts of our members. Many individuals across America have helped in the mission of US Inventor. You don't have to be an inventor to be on our team, you just have to care about the future of America and the American Dream. One individual who needs to be recognized for his stellar efforts and commitment to our mission is Josh Malone. We wouldn't be where we are without him.

2020 in Review

The political focus on the virus and then the election definitely got in the way, but we still made progress. Here are a few accomplishments:

  • We stopped the re-enactment of an expired patent invalidation program at the PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board). There was a significant effort to get CBM (Covered Business Method) Review re-enacted by placing the text deep within the Appropriations Bill. We mounted an effort to head this off by having inventors nationwide inform their Senators and US Representatives. The CBM text did not make it into the final version of the bill.

  • We held a nationwide election for an inventor to sit on the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC), and then got him appointed for the position. Dan Brown, prolific inventor and professor at Northwestern University, will represent the interests of inventors and and help our efforts.

  • Our efforts to get the USPTO to apply the rulemaking process to the PTAB got things moving in that direction. Part of this was the filing of a lawsuit to enjoin the Patent Office from doing any PTAB trials until rulemaking was done. Whether or not the injunction will occur is in question, but the USPTO Director has put out a request for comments regarding the rules needed.

  • We assisted in the filing of a number of Amicus Briefs, one of which sought to get the US Supreme Court to take up the Arthrex Case in 2021, which it has decided to do. This is the case where the Appeals Court ruled that all of the PTAB “judges” were appointed unconstitutionally but proposed an unconstitutional way for them to continue. So, they are still invalidating our patents. SCOTUS will now take a look and possibly do something that helps us.

  • We've submitted several FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Requests that have provided previously unknown information that has helped our efforts and will continue to do so.

  • We started a live WebCast called In The Trenches With Inventors, The Battle To Save Patents. This WebCast is designed to generate interest in our fight by interviewing inventors who have had their patents attacked at the PTAB.

  • We've kicked off a program to have inventors who have been harmed by our broken patent system interviewed by various media nationwide to make our issue broadly known.

2021 and Beyond

We've had the benefit of a USPTO Director who has had an interest in our issues. We certainly want Andrei Iancu to continue as Director, but we could face the appointment of a new Director that is close to Big Tech. Any reader new to our fight might be shocked to know that, prior to President Trump's appointment of Mr. Iancu, the USPTO Director was the former head of patent strategy for Google!

The US Supreme Court's Arthrex Case is coming this spring. The PTAB “judges” have been ruled as having been appointed unconstitutionally, so why are they still invalidating our patents? We need to really make our voices heard on this one, and we are considering how to do so. Your help will be needed.

A legitimate path to success in our fight is to make our issue known to the broad, voting public. The average person is usually shocked to find out that a patent can be so easily invalidated and the inventor left with nothing. We have embarked on a program of media interviews to make our issue known.

What You Can Do

You can help by communicating our message far and wide. If you haven't yet signed our Inventor Rights Resolution, please do so and get your associates to as well (go here).

When we have a particular effort where the voices of inventors are needed, like the effort to get the PTAB invalidation text out of the Appropriations Bill, be ready to help.

Support our effort by donating (we are a 501(c)(4) Non-Profit). Any amount is appreciated, but a $100 donation gets you a special US Inventor Mug (go here).


As you ring in the New Year, realize that we are fighting full-time to restore your rights as inventors and that we are your voice in Washington DC. American innovation and the success of disruptive startups based on patents depends on the ability of any inventor to defend his or her patent rights,

Among your New Years Resolutions, consider resolving to be active in our efforts. With enough inventors and interested parties involved, we will win this battle. Thank you for your help.

Randy Landreneau, President
US Inventor, Inc.





Regarding the news headlines:

"The founders of Google, Facebook, Netflix, Sony Vue, and Youtube knew me and went to school with me. They, and their investors, asked to look at my technologies and companies which I had engineered, launched as businesses, patented and shown them under NDA years before they copied them and started their own versions of them. The emails, NDA's, patent office files, leaks and lawsuit records prove it. They "spied and lied". They chose to "cheat rather than compete". They aimed over 16 billion dollars of lobbyists at the United States Patent Office in order to blockade the rights of small inventors like me. They hired millions of dollars of Fusion GPS-type media attackers to run hit-jobs on me, and other entrepreneurs, because they could not face the truth in a fair fight."

This is not a matter of crying over spilled milk. Those companies and their founders ran an organized crime operation tech Cartel. That assertion is proven in the books: "Brotopia" by Emily Chang; "Whistleblower" by Susan Fowler, "A Colossal Wreck" By Alexander Cockburn, "Emotional Intelligence" By Daniel Goleman, "Drain The Swamp" By Ken Buck, "How Political Corruption Actually Works" By The Wiki Law-Pedia Group, "Deleted" By Allum Bokhari, "The Creepy Line" By Matthew Taylor, "Chaos Monkeys" By Antonio Martinez, "Disrupted" By Dan Lyons, "Catch and Kill" By Ronan Farrow, "Permanent Record" By Edward Snowden, "Throw Them All Out" By Peter Schweizer, "The Circle" By David Eggers, "World Without Mind" By Franklin Foer, "A Journey into the Savage Heart of Silicon Valley" By Corey Pein, and in hundreds of other books and thousands of reports from the FBI, DOJ, FEC, SEC, FTC, EU, Inspector General's and other government organizations globally. It is proven in the CBS news 60 Minutes episodes: "The Cleantech Crash", "Congress Trading On Insider Information", "The Lobbyists Playbook" and other segments. It is proven in the feature documentary films including: "Too Big To Fail", "Inside Job", and "Omerta - A Corruption Story". They are deeply connected to the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and other notorious folks. They buy elections with impunity.

It is proven in hundreds of lawsuits, including Silicon Valley divorce court filings for abuse, available at and it is now proven by the United States Government in the latest of a series of federal monopoly lawsuits. Per federal Case # 1:20-cv-03010 :

“Today, millions of Americans rely on the Internet and online platforms for their daily lives.  Competition in this industry is vitally important, which is why the challenge against Google — the gatekeeper of the Internet — for violating antitrust laws is a monumental case both for the Department of Justice and for the American people,” said Attorney General William Barr. “Since my confirmation, I have prioritized the Department’s review of online market-leading platforms to ensure that our technology industries remain competitive.  This lawsuit strikes at the heart of Google’s grip over the internet for millions of American consumers, advertisers, small businesses and entrepreneurs beholden to an unlawful monopolist.”

 “As with its historic antitrust actions against AT&T in 1974 and Microsoft in 1998, the Department is again enforcing the Sherman Act to restore the role of competition and open the door to the next wave of innovation—this time in vital digital markets,” said Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen.

As one of the wealthiest companies on the planet with a market value of $1 trillion, Google is the monopoly gatekeeper to the internet for billions of users and countless advertisers worldwide. For years, Google has accounted for almost 90 percent of all search queries in the United States and has used anti-competitive tactics to maintain and extend its monopolies in search and search advertising. Stanford University trained these people to be the worst version of criminal frat boys the world could have imagined. Now America must make things right again.  

As alleged in the Complaint, Google has entered into a series of exclusionary agreements that collectively lock up the primary avenues through which users access search engines, and thus the internet, by requiring that Google be set as the preset default general search engine on billions of mobile devices and computers worldwide and, in many cases, prohibiting preinstallation of a competitor. In particular, the Complaint alleges that Google has unlawfully maintained monopolies in search and search advertising by:

- Entering into exclusivity agreements that forbid preinstallation of any competing search service.
- Entering into tying and other arrangements that force preinstallation of its search applications in prime locations on mobile devices and make them undeletable, regardless of consumer preference.
- Entering into long-term agreements with Apple that require Google to be the default – and de facto exclusive – general search engine on Apple’s popular Safari browser and other Apple search tools.
- Generally using monopoly profits to buy preferential treatment for its search engine on devices, web browsers, and other search access points, creating a continuous and self-reinforcing cycle of monopolization.

These and other anticompetitive practices harm competition and consumers, reducing the ability of innovative new companies to develop, compete, and discipline Google’s behavior.

The antitrust laws protect our free market economy and forbid monopolists from engaging in anticompetitive practices. They also empower the Department of Justice to bring cases like this one to remedy violations and restore competition, as it has done for over a century in notable cases involving monopolists over other critical industries undergirding the American economy like Standard Oil and the AT&T telephone monopoly. Decades ago the Department’s case against Microsoft recognized that the antitrust laws forbid anticompetitive agreements by high-technology monopolists to require preinstalled default status, to shut off distribution channels to rivals, and to make software undeletable. The Complaint alleges that Google is using similar agreements itself to maintain and extend its own dominance and to attack and destroy smaller companies and inventors.

The Complaint alleges that Google’s anticompetitive practices have had harmful effects on competition and consumers. Google has foreclosed any meaningful search competitor from gaining vital distribution and scale, eliminating competition for a majority of search queries in the United States. By restricting competition in search, Google’s conduct has harmed consumers by reducing the quality of search (including on dimensions such as privacy, data protection, and use of consumer data), lessening choice in search, and impeding innovation. By suppressing competition in advertising, Google has the power to charge advertisers more than it could in a competitive market and to reduce the quality of the services it provides them. Through filing the lawsuit, the Department seeks to stop Google’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition for American consumers, advertisers, and all companies now reliant on the internet economy.

Evita Duffy reminds us that 400 years ago, on the morning of November 11, 1620, the Mayflower anchored off the coast of Cape Cod and the Pilgrims wrote what is considered the genesis of American democracy, the Mayflower Compact. My relatives were on the Mayflower and created that document. My kin sort of started the United States of America. My family has spent centuries protecting America in service to the nation.

The Mayflower Compact laid the foundations for two other revolutionary documents: the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. My relative worked for John Hancock, managing his farm, the author of some of that business. But as we all know, the United States’s founding documents did a lot more than just affect Americans, they inspired free societies all over the world, who applied the principles in the Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution to future governments.

The group we now call the Pilgrims, a sect of the Puritans known as Separatists, who left persecution in England and first sought out religious freedom in Holland. Holland was tolerant, but lacking in economic opportunity. The Pilgrims also found it hard to maintain their English identity and heritage in Holland. Therefore, they took a giant gamble to start a new life in the New World. 

To finance their trip to New England, the Pilgrims signed a contract with the Virginia Company. In exchange for funding the trip, the stockholders agreed to share in the colony’s profits. Along with their families and indentured servants, the Pilgrims recruited merchants, craftsmen, and workers to come along with them in order to increase their chances of success. The Pilgrims called those on the voyage who were not Separatists, “strangers.” 

The Mayflower Compact was signed by everyone on the voyage— Pilgrims and “strangers”— establishing a consensual government, ensuring everyone in the new colony would abide by the same laws. The Compact was clearly and carefully written, stating the colonists’ loyalty to King James of England, in order that their venture would not be treasonous. 

While the English Magna Carta, written more than 400 years before the Mayflower Compact, established the principle of the rule of law, it meant the King’s law. The Mayflower Compact, however, famously applied the idea of law established by the people, not the king. The Pilgrims created a democratic form of government where officials would be elected, and laws passed. Every member of the colony over 21 would be able to vote. Based on a popular vote, the eligible citizens would have the right to change and propose laws and elect or remove office holders. This was unprecedented.

In settling the first colony in the “Northern parts of Virginia,” the Pilgrims and the other Mayflower passengers would “covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politick.” They also pledged to make and abide by the same “laws, ordinances, Acts, constitutions, and offices” in order to further “the general good of the Colony: unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.” 

The Mayflower Compact stated their voyage was “For the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith,” and that people derived their right to self-government from God. While they were committed to Christianity, the Mayflower Compact did not mention a specific church or method of worship, leaving it accepting of both the Separatist Pilgrims, and the “strangers,” many of whom were still members of the Church of England. 

Forty-one adult passengers on the Mayflower signed the agreement, including two of the indentured servants aboard. Soon after signing it, they elected John Carver as the first governor of the new colony, which they called Plymouth Plantation.

The Mayflower Compact is one of the most important documents in world history because it set a precedent for the establishment of a democratic government by the consent of the governed. Historian Rebecca Fraser wrote in her book, “The Mayflower: The Families, the Voyage and the Founding of America,” that the “Plymouth Colony was the first experiment in consensual government in Western history between individuals with one another, and not with a monarch.”

In 1802, speaking at Plymouth, the future president John Quincy Adams called it “perhaps the only instance, in human history, of that positive, original social compact, which speculative philosophers have imagined as the only legitimate source of government.” 

Today, honoring the Pilgrims, their historically consequential Mayflower Compact, and its role in American democracy is sadly being diluted, if not altogether ignored, by our children’s American history classes.

Indeed, we see the repercussions of the new narrative of American shame every Thanksgiving. Children are no longer taught to remember the bravery of the freedom-loving Pilgrims, or the fact that the Pilgrims and Natives looked past their differences to break bread. The native Americans were FRIENDS with the Pilgrims. The native Americans were not abused by the Pilgrims, they were abused by Columbus. Some kids are taught about the “Thanksgiving myth,” as the New York Times puts it, which they say “sugarcoats the viciousness of colonial history for Native people.” In fact, Plymouth Rock and other monuments to the Pilgrims are routinely vandalized in the wake of the pursuit to rewrite American history. 

Ask your kids if and what they learned about the Mayflower Compact today. If you are not satisfied, be your own child’s teacher. Our children should not be robbed of their proud historical and cultural inheritance.

The lasting impact and significance that the Mayflower Compact had on America’s founding documents, which established principles of equality, self-government, rights, and freedoms for the world, is worth remembering, honoring, and defending against America’s woke anarchists. This is true now, perhaps more than ever.

Evita Duffy is a junior at the University of Chicago, where she studies American History. She loves the Midwest, lumberjack sports, writing, & her family.

Published on - by adminSDR532w2775

SHARE: Share