Boucher replies: Roberto Molteni’s interesting discussion highlights weaknesses in the patent system that few fail to acknowledge. But the full history surrounding the various claims—set forth in some 600 legal cases—over who invented the telephone distorts a fuller objective evaluation of the merits of patent systems. That history is unusually rife with allegations of fraud—including against Antonio Meucci, who was accused of backdating his own records in an attempt to predate Alexander Graham Bell—and of conflicts of interest and intellectual theft.
Meucci’s caveat highlights pitfalls that still exist for inventors, particularly those who rely on provisional applications with incomplete descriptions. Critics have pointed to relevant omissions—notably the lack of any meaningful disclosure of converting sound to variable electrical conduction or vice versa—that continue to drive the debate over who invented the telephone. Even House Resolution 269, while attempting to bring a measure of appropriate recognition to Meucci’s role, avoids an unambiguous assertion that he invented the telephone. Rather, it states that “if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain [his] caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell.” That statement pertains most precisely to the caveat’s potential impact as prior art to Bell’s specific patent claims.
Molteni’s criticisms have merit, even if I do not fully agree that the patent system fails to protect the rights of individual inventors. The US decision to transition to a first-inventor-to-file system reflects a political judgment that favors greater certainty and increased harmonization with the world’s other patent systems. But like all political judgments, it is not without its flaws.
