been subjected to chemical processes to reinforce
their structures or increase their ductile characteris-
tics. Such materials had a diverse range of applica-
tions, including strengthening engines used for
transportation and facilitating the creation of faster,
more efficient, more resilient computer processors
and microchips. The creation of thin films, espe-
cially diamond, also advanced microelectronics.
In the early 1980’s, inventors created personal
computers sold by International Business Machines
(IBM) and Apple Computer, as well as the operating
systems, software, and peripherals required to oper-
ate them. These computers became popular for
home and business applications, including desktop
publishing. Computerized security systems were used
to guard buildings and vehicles.
Aerospace inventors improved airplanes and
spacecraft in a host of ways. They created fan designs
to decrease engine fuel consumption, space bump-
ers to deflect orbiting debris, and satellites for com-
mercial and scientific purposes. The space shuttle
program produced many inventions necessary to
maintain and exploit the capabilities of NASA’s shut-
tles. Astronauts aboard the shuttles, moreover, tested
earthbound scientists’ zero-gravity inventions, par-
ticularly pharmaceuticals.
Robotics innovations resulted in five thousand ro-
bots being used in U.S. industries in 1980, a number
that increased throughout the decade. Inventors
explored solar applications to provide energy for
transportation and buildings. Agricultural inventors
developed polymers to improve soil quality and de-
signed computer- and satellite-guided machinery.
Consumers enjoyed many 1980’s inventions, includ-
ing camcorders, videocassette recorders, compact
discs, and Rubik’s Cube. In the early 1980’s, satellite
television became available in some areas of the
United States. Consumers also bought a variety of
exercise and fitness inventions, such as the Stair-
master.
Patent Law Legally, the U.S. patent system im-
proved in the 1980’s, as legislative and judicial
changes strengthened patent law. In previous years,
judges concerned about preventing monopolies
had applied their antitrust mindset to decisions re-
garding intellectual property. Lacking experiences
with invention, many judges viewed patents as anti-
competitive, and they had tended to deny inventors’
efforts to protect their patents for that reason. Over
the course of the decade, judges came more often to
think of patents as promoting competition, so they
were less likely to apply antitrust principles in their
decisions regarding intellectual property.
Journalists reported on the effects of legislation
and court rulings, portraying them as detrimental
to inventiveness. On television, an episode ofNBC
Magazineaired on December 5, 1980, profiled three
inventors’ frustrations filing lawsuits for patent in-
fringement. Weed Eater inventor George Ballas ex-
plained that when forty competitors sold similar
weed-trimming products, a lawyer said Ballas’s pat-
ent had to be judged valid in court before he could
seek infringement proceedings. A judge had then
invalidated Ballas’s patent: He had ruled that Ballas’s
invention was obvious enough that anyone could
have had the same idea, and it was therefore not
patentable.
In June, 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court handed
down a 5-4 decision inDiamond v. Chakrabarty, a case
involving the question of whether it was possible to
patent manufactured life forms. General Electric
microbiologist Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty had filed
in 1972 for a patent for a bacterium that could con-
sume octane and camphor in crude oil. The USPTO
denied his application, asserting that Section 101 of
the Patent Act did not cover living organisms. The
U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals decided
for Chakrabarty, resulting in the case going to the
Supreme Court. On June 16, 1980, Chief Justice
Warren Burger delivered the majority opinion, which
favored Chakrabarty’s patent and established that it
was possible to patent living things. Burger empha-
sized that the decision was not a judgment as to the
desirability of genetic engineering; it merely indi-
cated that the products of such engineering could
qualify for a patent. The ruling resulted in the ap-
proval of approximately one hundred previously
filed applications to patent organisms.
In the early 1980’s, federal legislators and judges
considered taking legal measures to protect com-
puter programs. USPTO officials again cited Section
101 of the Patent Act of 1952 when they denied in-
ventors James Diehr and Theodore Lutton a patent
for a curing process that used computers to monitor
temperatures while molding rubber. The initial rul-
ing ofDiamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trade-
marks v. Diehr and Luttonstated that computer pro-
grams could not qualify for patents. The U.S. Court
of Customs and Patent Appeals again sided with the524 Inventions The Eighties in America