Whether the exclusive Right in inventions as written in the Constitution is a fundamental Right or Constitutional privilege separate from common law exclusive right

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In the colonial era, all inventions were safely guarded trade secrets by employers depriving inventors of their rights to exclude others and ordinary citizens of knowledge. In addition, corporations owning the printing press used to transfer all authorship rights to them. The Founding Fathers understood the widespread abuse of Copyright and Inventorship rights and solved them by adding the Patent and Copyright clause, Art. I Sec. 8. Cl. 8 US Constitution, authorizing Congress to protect authors and inventors by securing their respective rights for limited times, making 3"4 party or corporations agents of inventors or users of inventions. Founders' good intent and purpose have been destroyed in the last 70 years, and now 93% of patents are secured to corporations instead of inventors. Based on those patents and related authorship, Corporations stole $7 trillion from inventors and authors in the last 25 years alone. Art. I See. 8 Cl. 8 US Constitution didn't authorize Congress to build such a patent system. Inventors are less protected now than they were in the colonial era. The patent system evolved in a way as if the Founders added Art. I Sec. 8. Cl. 8, US Constitution to penalize Inventors and to reward corporations. "Letters patent" is just the dress or cover for "the exclusive Right", Art. I Sec. 8. Cl. 8, US Constitution making it an offensive privilege to exclude others in sharp contrast to the common law defensive “exclusive license" right. In the last 70 years that safety net has been reversed to secure almost all inventions to corporations. This review is to protect the US Constitution from the erosion of the bold underlined i text below that protected inventors for 160 years by securing inventions to inventors: "by securing for limited Times to Authors and . Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 8, US Constitution.[bold underline to : emphasis] The questions presented are: : 1. Whether "the exclusive Right" in inventions as written in the Constitution is a fundamental Right or Constitutional privilege separate from common law "exclusive right" and U.S. Const, Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8 sufficiently empowered the US Congress, irrespective of the Fourteenth ; Amendments, to enact 42 U.S. Code § 1983 to reach a private party without state action when the party burdens "the exclusive Right" and 42 U.S. Code § 1985 without class animus when the private party conspires to burden "the exclusive Right" by claiming false ownership of : inventor's Patent. : . 2. Whether "the exclusive Right" in inventions as : written in the Constitution is fundamental ; Right or Constitutional privilege separate from common law "exclusive right" and U.S. Const, Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8 sufficiently empowered the US congress, irrespective of the Commerce Clause, to enact 15 U.S. Code § 1 to reach a private party for claiming false ownership of ; inventor's Patent burdening "the exclusive Right" causing restraint to use the Patent and ; ii to enact 15 U.S. Code § 2 for taking substantial steps to take over the monopoly power of ; inventors patent. 3. Whether an Agreement between an inventor and an employer corporation is actionable under the Sherman Act Section 1 or 15 U.S. : Code § J even when such Agreement is labeled as an Employee Agreement. Alternately if this Court in Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 769 (1984), foreclosed inventors' Constitutional Right to be the Constitutional anchor for "the exclusive Right" in Invention to be secured on barring an inventor from being a separate entity from corporation to bring action against the corporation under 15 U.S. Code § 1. iii PARTIES The petitioner ATM Shafiqul Khalid, acting prose is a resident of Redmond, Washington. The respondent Microsoft Corporation is a ; Washington corporation with its principal office of business in Redmond, Washington. RELATED CASES Khalid v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. C19-1380;