Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lawyer Sues To Get a Patent On Marketing

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the series-of-gears dept.

Patents 116

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Lawyer Scott Harris, one of the inventors of the concept of a 'marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits,' is appealing the USPTO's rejection of US Patent Application No. 09/387,823 which was intended to patent that 'invention.' This court action is important because it directly challenges the In Re Bilski ruling, which tightened the rules to get rid of most so-called 'business method' patents. One of Mr. Harris's legal theories is that a 'company is a physical thing, and as such analogous to a machine.' If the name seems familiar, it's because Mr. Harris has a long history of inventive legal maneuverings. I'm honestly surprised that SCO never tried to hire or sue him."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I sued to get this to be FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27132897)

A YouTube SENSATION!!! [youtube.com]

The Future is Almost Here (4, Interesting)

dsginter (104154) | more than 5 years ago | (#27132915)

I can see a point where the United States becomes a lawsuit-based economy: instead of producing actual stuff, we'll all just patent stuff like email on a cell phone (who would have thought of that otherwise?).

The lawyers will obviously need to eat and get haircuts, so the money will eventually trickle down into the hands of the middle class.

I'm a genius - off to the patent office to patent this idea! I can't wait for my first royalty check.

becomes? (4, Insightful)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#27132939)

sorry, prior art, no dice

In almost every other case I would be against this (1)

GargamelSpaceman (992546) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133643)

<disclaimer>I have not read TFA, only the title.</disclaimer>

<humor>

Think of the implications if marketing is patented... LESS MARKETING, at least for a while. I, for one, like it.

</humor>

Re:In almost every other case I would be against t (2, Insightful)

RobBebop (947356) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133951)

One of Mr. Harris's legal theories is that a 'company is a physical thing, and as such analogous to a machine.'

I thought the legal representation of a company was as a legal entity comparable to an individual for tax and other purposes. Then, his argument breaks down because he'd be implying that individuals are analogous to machines...

Re:In almost every other case I would be against t (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27136115)

Ohhhh! I'll patent sending unsolicited emails! I'll make millions! Or I'll end Spamming. Either way, it's win-win!

Re:In almost every other case I would be against t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27136339)

Do we really need the mock-HTML? Enough already.

If my mod points included "-1 Why?" I would use them.

Re:In almost every other case I would be against t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27141649)

> Think of the implications if marketing is patented... LESS MARKETING, at least for a while. I, for one, like it.

They left off the word "paradigm" from the end. This only covers some crazy marketing/reselling scheme he made up.

Re:becomes? (1)

psychicsword (1036852) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134785)

That hasn't stopped people in the past

Re:The Future is Almost Here (3, Interesting)

Skrynesaver (994435) | more than 5 years ago | (#27132965)

You jest, but we currently have US lobbyists acting for US companies in the EU attempting to remove the concept of independent open standards from Europe's ICT policy framework, so that all attempts at interoperation will result in a payment to someone. Any notion of a commons is clearly anathema to some companies and cultures.

Take a look at this article in the Linux Journal [linuxjournal.com]

Re:The Future is Almost Here (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27132977)

I'm a genius - off to the patent office to patent this idea! I can't wait for my first royalty check.

In related news, Boies, Schiller, LLP, have filed a lawsuit on behalf of The SCO Group against dsginter, who is the assignee listed on a recent patent application for a lawsuit-based business.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133287)

they can try, but rambus has got prior art on that.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

Caue (909322) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133015)

I can see a point where the United States becomes a lawsuit-based economy

I think you are already there. And it's not only Patent-related. The "industry" of lawsuits must be one of the pillars of american economy nowadays.. when people start filling suits because they burned their mouth with coffee or are too damn stupid to keep dangerous cleasing products from their three years old son you just know something went real bad. (really, how stupid you must be to be outsmarted by an infant)

I defend the right to bare arms and resolve conflicts like this in duels. Easy, clean and permanent. Lawsuit my ass, duels are the new problem solver. If it worked for guys like eastwood, bronson or ledger (solving matters the painfull way), should work now.

And we could replace judge mathis and the gang for a real life "silverado" every day.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (4, Funny)

Tx (96709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133051)

I defend the right to bare arms and resolve conflicts like this in duels.

Easy there, I am also a fan of short sleeved shirts, but I'm not sure this is appropriate or traditional attire for a duel.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

Caue (909322) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133665)

I'm brazilian.. excuse me for my poor english skills. If slashdot goes portuguese someday, I'll crush all with my suberb portuguese knowledge. >D

Re:The Future is Almost Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27133905)

I'm american.. excuse me for my poor english skills. If slashdot goes jive someday, I'll crush all with my suberb jive knowledge. >D

Fixed your post for you. Now, cook me some porter house grub, ho.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

pmarini (989354) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133285)

you mean that the parents didn't pay their kid to provide evidence on how to get hurt with those terrorist bottles, like SafeNet/RIAA is doing in court ? :-)

Re:The Future is Almost Here (0, Offtopic)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133963)

> I defend the right to bare arms and resolve conflicts like this in duels. Easy, clean and permanent. Lawsuit my ass, duels are the new problem solver. If it worked for guys like eastwood, bronson or ledger (solving matters the painfull way), should work now.

You're an idiot. What does being the better duelist have to do with being right or wrong? "This little girl claims she was raped by this police officer, let's give them both a gun and let Odin decide who is right"? Going from a system where the guy with the best lawyer wins to a system where the best dueller wins hardly seems like an improvement to me.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

Caue (909322) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134077)

I hate when sarcasm goes unnoticed, but it happens. Sorry. I'll write [sarcasm intended] next time, I swear

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#27136551)

GP can't help it, he's German.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 5 years ago | (#27136859)

Oops. I fail :/

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27136811)

That's easy to fix, that is where the concept of champions came in. This little girl claims to have been raped by this officer. As is her right she has chosen a champion for her cause, in this case Joey the gangbanger. Let the dueling commence and may The geat Spirit choose to show mercy to the loser's soul. And without further ado-"LET'S GET READY TO RUMMMMMBLE!"

See how easy that was to fix? And we will make a ton of money in PPV, ringside tickets, AND medical and training services. Why? Don't YOU want to help the economy?

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134727)

I can see a point where the United States becomes a lawsuit-based economy

Easy, clean and permanent. Lawsuit my ass, duels are the new problem solver. If it worked for guys like eastwood, bronson or ledger

Couldn't have picked some real duels, could you? You know, like Hamilton vs Burr, Jackson vs Dickinson, or Lincoln vs Shields.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134847)

Lincoln vs Booth was another classic.

Too bad Lincoln brought a knife to a gun fight.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27135411)

Lincoln vs Booth was another classic. Too bad Lincoln brought a knife to a gun fight.

Not much of a duel. Lincoln didn't bring anything to that "fight".

I think this would be more akin to the screaming fan-girl getting a backstage pass to Hannah Montana, and Miley unexpectedly shoots her #1 fan.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (5, Insightful)

DevConcepts (1194347) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133063)

The lawyers will obviously need to eat and get haircuts....

Lawyers don't eat food, they consume the souls of their clients and their hair doesn't grow because their dead.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27133259)

doesn't grow because their dead.

they're

When will people get this right?

Re:The Future is Almost Here (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27133527)

Never. Their too busy trying to make there mark here and they're.

Sorry, just couldn't resist. Do you realise how difficult that was to type for someone with a traditional education (get it right or say hello to my friend Mr. Board Rubber)? I had to erect a fort first, just in case of flying educational supplies ;o)

Re:The Future is Almost Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27133837)

you said "erect"

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134673)

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

You don't have to apologize, you're a dry cleaner, and it's 3am. It would be ridiculous for me to expect you to be open.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 5 years ago | (#27136503)

You don't have to apologize, you're a dry cleaner, and it's 3am. It would be ridiculous for me to expect you to be open.

Unless, of course, you are a DC judge. Then, you would sue him for millions of dollars.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27138393)

**woosh** you missed the mitch hedburg reference

Re:The Future is Almost Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27140875)

Never. Their too busy trying to make there mark here and they're.

It depresses me greatly that those mistakes have become so commonplace that I didn't even begin to think it was a joke until I was done reading it. :(

Re:The Future is Almost Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27133561)

When it stops being entertaining to watch other correct it.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27134265)

others

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

DevConcepts (1194347) | more than 5 years ago | (#27135015)

When will people get this right?

When speel chek is prefected.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

bgray54 (1207256) | more than 5 years ago | (#27135393)

Wow, slashdotters must have a REALLY low opinion of lawyers to have modded this insightful instead of funny.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (2, Interesting)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133309)

I can see a point where the United States becomes a lawsuit-based economy: instead of producing actual stuff, we'll all just patent stuff like email on a cell phone (who would have thought of that otherwise?).

The tv show Sliders was a flop, let's not rehash one of their episode starters.

Re:The Future is Almost Here (1)

Evil Shabazz (937088) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134385)

I can see a point where the United States becomes a lawsuit-based economy

Me too. I think it was around the 1992-95 area.

Actually, lost on appeal and bilksi upheld (5, Informative)

aaribaud (585182) | more than 5 years ago | (#27132967)

Misleading title and summary. The main point is not that the lawyer sued and challenges in Re Bilski, but that he lost on Appeal and that in Re Bilski was ruled dispositive...
... as Groklaw's link mentions right from their own title. Now, that Slashdot readers don't RTFA is usual, but submitters? Sheesh. :)

Another one bites the dust! (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27132997)

IOW, since the court upheld in Re Bilski, this is another nail in the coffin for business patents.

What I'm waiting on is: What does this mean for software patents? I guess we're about to find out in the Microsoft v. TomTom case. I'm sure we all wait with bated breath.

Re:Another one bites the dust! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27133065)

I'm sure we all wait with bated breath.

I'm waiting with baited breath; currently standing on the Redmond campus front lawn, wiggling a minnow between my teeth.

Re:Another one bites the dust! (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134499)

Thanks for spelling "bated" correctly. I automatically wince when I see that word, just because I assume that it will be misspelled by someone who does not know what the word means and is only repeating something that he heard someone say on TV. Now, if we can get nerds to understand the difference between a horde of monsters and a hoard of gold, I can die happy.

Re:Another one bites the dust! (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134819)

What, one can't have a hoard of monsters? I like to collect them. Getting them into chests and the like is a real bitch, though.

Re:Another one bites the dust! (1)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | more than 5 years ago | (#27136907)

I hoard monsters under my kid's bed, and gold under mine.

Re:Another one bites the dust! (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 5 years ago | (#27140021)

And with a few animate object spells you can have a horde of gold.

Re:Another one bites the dust! (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27137515)

Huh? I hoard monsters. You can't believe what I can get for those things on the black market!

Re:Actually, lost on appeal and bilksi upheld (4, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133081)

Now, that Slashdot readers don't RTFA is usual, but submitters? Sheesh. :)

I'm telling you, the Take a Shot Every Time kdawson Posts Bullshit Drinking Game is the #1 contributor to cirrhosis of the liver.

Re:Actually, lost on appeal and bilksi upheld (2, Funny)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133609)

This sucks. I was hoping we were finally going to get rid of marketing.

does that mean (2, Funny)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133029)

advertisers can't lie without paying a royalty? Maybe I should patent lying.

Re:does that mean (3, Funny)

MrMr (219533) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133135)

You need to get more into the spirit of things:
Just claim you patented lying and start extorting all the other liars.

Re:does that mean (4, Funny)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133331)

Just claim you patented lying and start extorting all the other liars.

It's that kind of thinking that built this great land.

Re:does that mean (1)

Repton (60818) | more than 5 years ago | (#27142543)

Just claim you patented lying and start extorting all the other liars.

Yeah, but how do you find them?

"Are you a liar?" "No."

Wait... (4, Funny)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133067)

Marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits.

...Stores?!?

Re:Wait... (3, Insightful)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133359)

He appears to be trying to patent the concept of a marketing company or more specifically a software marketing company .... I suspect these already exist and have done for some time ....

Prior art is every software marketing company in existence ...forget if it can be patented due to it being a process, it has been around so long and is so obvious it cannot be patented

Re:Wait... (2, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133571)

He appears to be trying to patent the concept of a marketing company or more specifically a software marketing company .... I suspect these already exist and have done for some time ....

Prior art is every software marketing company in existence ...forget if it can be patented due to it being a process, it has been around so long and is so obvious it cannot be patented

Irrelevant. Section 101 rejections come before 102 or 103 considerations.

Re:Wait... (1)

volpe (58112) | more than 5 years ago | (#27140785)

Marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits.

...Stores?!?

Real-estate agents?

not a machine (5, Interesting)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133087)

His argument that a company is a physical thing analogous to a machine is flawed. In our legal system, a company is a "non-natural person", so what he's trying to do is to patent a person, and that's a definite no-no.

Re:not a machine (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133481)

His argument that a company is a physical thing analogous to a machine is flawed. In our legal system, a company is a "non-natural person", so what he's trying to do is to patent a person, and that's a definite no-no.

Your argument is flawed (so is the mod points you were given).
If you are saying you can't patent a company because you can't patent a person you are then saying you can't own a company because you can't own a person. That is the same argument.

Companies are considered non-natural person's for the purposes of taxations. You tax a company like a person is taxed (thought at a different rate). Companies have their own SS# (known as an EIN number ##-#######). After that the similarities between a company and a person stop. A company is a thing and can be owned. The corporate "entity" is non-tangeable, though assests of the company are. People own the "entity" all the time - corporate owner(s) like a single owner, partners or stock holders.

Re:not a machine (1)

Forbman (794277) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134115)

You can show the world you, as can I. Show me the "Microsoft" or any other corporation, and your arguments will hold water. No, BillG or SteveB don't count, nor do the things a corporation might actually produce, nor do the employees that work for the corporation, or any assets that are owned by the corporation. The Microsoft Campus is not "Microsoft", nor is the shipping center they had in the Canyon Park Business Center, or any other place like that. A corporation is a virtual entity. Ownership of a corporation is abstracted out, even a sole proprietorship is an abstraction. Stocks, partnership percentages, are all abstractions, much like money is an abstraction (of value).

Think about it: how do you throw a corporation in jail for its misdeeds? You can't. You can certainly punish it financially or the people working on behalf of the corporation, but you can't really do much TO a corporation except dissolve it. You can't throw all of Microsoft's stocks in jail.

Re:not a machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27137285)

Think about it: how do you throw a corporation in jail for its misdeeds? You can't.

How can a corporation do misdeeds? The managers of a company are certainly capable of doing so, and if they do so, they are definitely culpable (just ask Kenneth Lay)...

Re:not a machine (1)

mishehu (712452) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134161)

I beg to differ. You can own intangible representation of value in a company (shares). The value (usually in monetary units and/or voting rights) are really worth no more than the paper they are written on. You also cannot say "see, my 200 shares represents these physical components of the company (akin to an arm or a leg)".

You do not own a company like you own a person, but a company itself is still not a tangible entity. Perhaps you are mistakenly thinking about tangible assets owned by a company.

A company is considered a non-natural person for more than just the purposes of taxation. Remember all those patents that *companies* own? Well, turns out companies can own tangible and intangible items... that's not just a matter of taxation, that's a matter of ownership.

Re:not a machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27134183)

individuals do not own corporations. A corporation is a "non-natural person". "Company" refers to the superset of which "corporation" is included.

Re:not a machine (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134195)

so is the mod points you were given

I cringed and nearly cried when I read that...

Re:not a machine (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134677)

Your sense of humor are as good as your grammar. :)

Actually, you've just touched upon an argument I plan to take to the Supreme Court as a class action on behalf of all corporations, that their inalienable rights under the Equal Protection clause are being violated. Corporations are denied the right to vote, to attend the school of their choice, to enlist in the armed services, to hold elective office, to adopt children, to marry the person (natural or otherwise) of their choice, etc.

Re:not a machine (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133497)

Actually, it's even worse than that. A company is not even a "physical person" or physical-anything like the patent applicant wants to argue. A company is simply a legally-recognized *relationship* between physical things and people, not a physical object itself, which are what patents are intended to cover configurations of.

Incidentally, this is the source of another confusion. While the stuff you own might be physical, the legal rights you have in that stuff are not physical; just like a company, they are defined by the relationship they signify between people. When people say they want some object, what they really want is some combination of a) capability of accessing the object, and b) the legal right to access it (i.e. no one stops them). So physical property rights are just as non-material as intellectual property rights, meaning neither one is more "imaginary" or "tangible" than the other. Not that IP is justified or anything, blah blah blah.

Re:not a machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27134985)

Well, in this economical situation you could say a company is a declaration of intent of making taxable profits by arbitrary legal means.

Re:not a machine (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 5 years ago | (#27135019)

"A company is like an enormous clock. It only works if all the little cogs mesh together. A clock must be clean, well lubricated, and wound tight."
--Gilbert Huph

We should really be asking: (1)

areusche (1297613) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133095)

Where do these guys get their money? I was under the impression that sending in a patent, defending it, and the rest of the stuff is an incredibly expensive endeavor. This obviously was denied so he goes off and challenges the decision in court. Does this man really have the time and money to waste on something pointless like this?

Re:We should really be asking: (4, Insightful)

codegen (103601) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133127)

Does this man really have the time and money to waste on something pointless like this?

He's a lawyer. You do the math.

Marketing stunt. (3, Interesting)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133429)

I have a hunch: I don't think he really wants the patent to use it. I think he wants to get this patent to prove that he's a god among patent attorneys and all those firm that want patents or to sue for patents will hire him and his firm.

Then again, he may actually want the patent so he can hire other lawyers to sue on his behalf so that then, he can sit home, watch his DVD collection of Boston Legal, sip Scotch, and wish that he was hooked up with such hot women as Alan Shore has.

Re:Marketing stunt. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27134367)

Or he might just be trying to prove how ridiculous the patent system is.

Re:Marketing stunt. (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27139949)

You mean like that freelancer that patented the wheel?

Re:We should really be asking: (1)

WNight (23683) | more than 5 years ago | (#27141829)

It's easier for the attacker than the victim. The attacker can, largely, break off at any time to limit their spending.

companies are like snowflakes (3, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133109)

If a company is a physical thing, an apparatus, then it is constructed in large part by the people who staff it. All people are unique, and any permutation of a group of people forms a unique subculture. The team either gels or it doesn't, in a unique pattern of ways. Real patents document how to reproduce the results, and anyone is free to try, once the sanctioned monopoly rights have expired. Therefore, a company does not need patent protection, as it will be impossible to reproduce the same mechanism.

Re:companies are like snowflakes (3, Funny)

pmarini (989354) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133369)

you mean that a company never makes the same mistake twice ? :-)

any reference to Microsoft in this post is purely coincidental...

Bullshit (3, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133159)

'company is a physical thing, and as such analogous to a machine.'

"A machine is any device that uses energy to perform some activity. In common usage, the meaning is that of a device having parts that perform or assist in performing any type of work." Neither a technical nor a vernacular understanding of machinery supports his argument. Only in the twisted logic common to LawyerLandtm could this ever be considered a machine. Lawyers ought to be disbarred for this behavior, as only someone who has an incredibly dishonest character could torture a definition like this.

Re:Bullshit (1)

mishehu (712452) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134291)

LawyerLandtm... That must be one of those amusement parks for lawyers where they get to ride around all sorts of rides and roller coasters based on trials and precedents, but in a fun surrealistic way like with a mouse, a duck, and a dog. I'd rather guys like Harris go to LawyerLandtm more often and stay away from our Reality.

I wonder what the Lawyers of the Caribbean ride is like...

Re:Bullshit (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 5 years ago | (#27135265)

I wonder what the Lawyers of the Caribbean ride is like...

The parts of Johnny Depp, Kiera Knightley and Orlando Bloom are all played by Jack Thompson.

Inventive Legal Maneuvering? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27133261)

As long as it's possible to be "inventive" with the law, we will all suffer.

Prior art? Record companies... (3, Insightful)

Mirar (264502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133341)

"Marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits" sounds like what record companies have been doing for almost a century?

Prior art? How about marketing companies? (1)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 5 years ago | (#27135769)

Who needs to fish for examples.. marketing companies have existed for a long time.

Re:Prior art? Record companies... (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 5 years ago | (#27136737)

"Marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits" sounds like what record companies have been doing for almost a century?

Record Companies? Hell, you can go back at least to ancient Rome for something like this. Perhaps even in ancient Egypt there was a town crier paid to shout "Come to Imhotep's Medical Emporium! Buy one brain surgery, get the second one absolutely free! Imhotep! His prices are insane!"

A patent on retail?! (1)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133563)

Doesn't every single retail store sell products produced by other companies in return for their profits?! The fact that anyone could even think this nonsense could be patented shows how screwed up our patent system is.

SCO (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27133593)

... should sue him for violating their patent of suing people for violating their patents.

That's it! (1)

deuist (228133) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134245)

I'm patenting funk.

Patent Application (2, Funny)

rocketPack (1255456) | more than 5 years ago | (#27134259)

A Process for Obtaining Legal Ownership of Certain Intellectual Property

ABSTRACT
An application is submitted to a government run office which oversees the process of granting and protecting intellectual property rights. Applications contain explanations of methods, design, and applications for said creations, and are often accompanied by diagrams and figures representing the proposed creation for which the applicant ("the Owner") will seek to obtain exclusive rights to create or sell. Once such rights are granted, any facsimile or copy produced by anyone other than the Owner, without express permission of the Owner, will been deemed a forgery and they will be prosecuted pursuant to U.S. intellectual property laws. The following rules shall be applied to any application under consideration:

  1. Prior Art will never be acknowledged. It is irrelevant to the money-making scheme.
  2. The most obscure, ridiculous patents will be approved first.
  3. The process shall never be permitted to be explained, documented, made public, or revised.
  4. All complaints and obvious ill effects on society and technology shall be disregarded.
  5. No actual usable device must ever be produced so that rights may be granted for things one could never actually reasonably expect to produce in any quantity.
  6. Regardless of whether or not the Owner intends to use the granted rights for anything meaningful, or any purpose other than to hinder progress and make money off of the hard work of others, the application shall always be considered valid.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
None. I thought of it first and no one else had ever even conceived of such an invention. Take my word for it, no research necessary. Don't even bother Google'ing it.

DESCRIPTION OF PRIOR ART
Not that this is at all relevant, but see the previous section.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Uselessly over-abused process of rewarding those who deserve it the least and providing consistent unfair advantages to those who will hinder progress where progress is often needed the most.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY-
Patent Application No. 7,512,440
GRANTED 3/10/2009

Summary Wrong, Title Wrong (2, Insightful)

notaspy (457709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27135231)

Typical. kdawson hasn't a clue about Intellectual Property issues, yet posts constantly and inaccurately about them.

Firstly, the lawyer did not "sue" to get a patent. The application was (appropriately) rejected by the patent examiner. The applicant appealed the rejection to the PTO Board of Appeals and the rejection was upheld. The applicant then appealed that rejection to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which applied Bilski to uphold the rejection again. Despite the fact that a court was involved, this was not a "lawsuit."

Rather than appealling to the CAFC, the applicant could have filed a civil action against the Commissioner of Patents in the DC Circuit Court. This would be considered a lawsuit.

The only story here should be that the Patent system worked.

And please, please, STOP posting articles with headlines announcing that somebody "won" a patent. Patents are issued or allowed.

Re:Summary Wrong, Title Wrong (1)

notaspy (457709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27135785)

flamebait???

Re:Summary Wrong, Title Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27140819)

You know, kdawson bashing can be fun, but this is a bit over the top. The difference between a suit and a court action is pretty subtle to a non-lawyer - you could have tried to explain that fact, instead of going into a diatribe about it.

Next thing you know, you'll go into stupid-pedantic mode about the difference between winning a patent and having one issued .... oh.

My patent (2, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 5 years ago | (#27135739)

I have been granted a patent on staying home from work and hitting the bong.

To the office with all of you!

Invalidated due to Prior Art (1)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 5 years ago | (#27135905)

Namely, just about every lawyer in existence...

That is so like totally cool. (1)

formfeed (703859) | more than 5 years ago | (#27136239)

He invented the travelling salesman.

should have been rejected for obviousness (1)

bradleybear (228308) | more than 5 years ago | (#27136435)

The problem with re: Bilksi is that all the patents that are being rejected this way should have been rejected because they are "obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art". Bilksi is a copout by the courts that couldn't be bothered to do the right thing by invalidating for obviousness.

The boundary between hardware, software, and processes is not clean cut, and makes a poor basis for rejecting patents.

Re:should have been rejected for obviousness (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27137423)

The problem with re: Bilksi is that all the patents that are being rejected this way should have been rejected because they are "obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art". Bilksi is a copout by the courts that couldn't be bothered to do the right thing by invalidating for obviousness.

As another poster pointed out, you have the order wrong. As a procedural rule, the PTO doesn't even consider the issue of whether or not the patent is novel or non-obvious until it has considered whether the subject matter is patentable in the first place. So if a patent is both not patentable subject matter and has prior art dating back to antiquity, like this one, it will be rejected for not being patentable subject matter and the issues of novelty and obviousness won't even be considered. That's not a cop out; even if there are many reasons to reject a patent application, it makes sense to stop looking after you find the first one.

(IANAL, and definitely NAPL)

Re:should have been rejected for obviousness (1)

bradleybear (228308) | more than 5 years ago | (#27137627)

Nonetheless, I feel that the Bilski decision is wrong. The court shouldn't have created a new reason to kill patents when the old reasons were better.

If someone ever came up with a nonobvious and useful business method patent, I would have supported its patentability.

The patent office is doing the right thing. Bilski gives a reason to kill the patent. But the courts should have killed it based on obviousness.

Great Idea! (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#27137079)

If this patent means it's illegal for me to market myself in a job interview, I'm all for it!

Law is killing innovation (1)

Bysshe (1330263) | more than 5 years ago | (#27137731)

Now, this is why doing business in the US is getting to be more and more expensive, and is stifling innovation. If this legal quagmire continues the US will lose its competitive edge as it did in manufacturing and is currently doing so in finance. The law is not only going to kill technical innovation but business innovation as well.

Luckily its still the easiest country to start a company in, as well as has pretty decent tax and labor laws (beneficial to companies).

Downside to labor... ya'll are expensive.

Brilliant idea (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#27137951)

I should patent the concept of giving remuneration for work provided by employees. This way, whenever anyone in the world gets a paycheck, I'd get a cut of that action!

Patent on Sociopathy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27139467)

Why don't these guys just get a patent on Sociopathy to enrich themselves?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?