×

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!

Man Tries to Patent His "Godly Powers"

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the this-patent-brought-to-you-by-shampoo dept.

Idle 192

KWInt1601 writes "A man who believes he is Christ files a patent application — and the formal dance of responding to office actions from the USPTO begins. Invoking the 1998 State Street decision, the applicant argues, 'like software, godly powers is a method, and affects a machine. Like business methods, godly powers produces a useful, concrete, and tangible result, and that should be all that's needed for statutory material.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

192 comments

Please grant it... (5, Funny)

SMoynihan (1647997) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374576)

It would be freaking hilarious if they granted it, and he went around suing all the Churches...

Please, please, please...

Re:Please grant it... (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374702)

Good luck getting God to abide by the court's decision... can't sue the churches, they don't claim to have any direct control over godly power, just a hotline to the guy who does.

Re:Please grant it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36374744)

Good luck getting God to abide by the court's decision... can't sue the churches, they don't claim to have any direct control over godly power, just a hotline to the guy who does.

So, this guy should take a page out of the ISP/Cable company/cell provider book and charge for access?

Re:Please grant it... (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375094)

At least levy a surcharge for those who have exceeded their bandwidth cap. And maybe a TSO violation for excessive content sharing.

Re:Please grant it... (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375386)

In that case, they still might be liable for indirect infringement. Would be worth a try. Also, if god does not abide by the decision, you could just target the pope - after all he claims to act as god's immediate proxy on earth.

Re:Please grant it... (2)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375462)

Well, look. "God" can settle this today. He can either appear and say "Yes, this guy does my bidding and I do my good deeds through him", or he can not appear at which case I will be the only one that holds "Godly Powers".

Wait for it.... wait for it....

Thats what Im talkin bout.
Count it!

Re:Please grant it... (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375552)

Did you just admit that, by virtue of declaring yourself god, are infringing on this idea? Mate, time to lawyer up ;)

Re:Please grant it... (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375256)

Shut up man you're gonna blow it they'll read your post and see this patent is in the public interest and once they see that there's no way they'll grant it.

Re:Please grant it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375460)

Was already granted, but the funny thing is this gives us a new "Armageddon" after we all live through 2012 - 29JUL2025 - when the patent becomes public use and he gives up all rights to it's contents for others - hence we become god or get to sue him for false claims.

Adams would've had a field day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375490)

For him to successfully sue the churches, he'd have to first _prove_ that they were infringing on his patent! Poof! The patent troll promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

Re:Adams would've had a field day (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375720)

If we know anything at all, is that patent trolls have a +100 defense against logic.

Re:Please grant it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375700)

I claim prior art.

Sincerely,
God /don't make me smite you . . .

prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375916)

"I HAVE PRIOR ART"
"Prove it"
"YOU EXIST DON'T YOU?"
"Damn"

That is all.

Ooh! Ooh! (5, Funny)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374578)

Sorry, but we have prior art. See also Respawn [computerhope.com].

Also, your system has a respawn lag time of about 3 days. Not very efficient. Especially for someone who claims his boss/dad created an entire universe in less than a week.

Re:Ooh! Ooh! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375228)

That's by design. It's intended to reduce the incidence of spawn-point camping.

Re:Ooh! Ooh! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375588)

Nah, I bet it is to increase revenue. After all, you need a lot resources if your subscribers can't use your service for 3 days after dying.

Re:Ooh! Ooh! (0)

hierofalcon (1233282) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375276)

John 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Colossians 1 12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be
thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

The Word, referred to here, is Jesus Christ. All three individuals making up the Trinity had a part in the creation.

All the Bible states for the duration is found in Gen. 1:1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The remainder of the chapter deals with God's restoring the Earth to a second habitable state after the rebellion of Lucifer.

Re:Ooh! Ooh! (1)

Xaedalus (1192463) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375526)

Citation please. Where exactly in Genesis does it mention that the Earth got trashed by Lucifer during the Rebellion, and that it had to be rebuilt. That is the most... well... perhaps not the most outlandish explanation for the two Genesis stories I've heard.

Re:Ooh! Ooh! (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375836)

Religion: Our word is always correct. However, if an inconsistency appears, we will retcon it.

Well, at least God hasn't rebooted the universe yet like DC is.

Re:Ooh! Ooh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375898)

Of course he did. He even asked Noah to make a backup and reinstall!

Re:Ooh! Ooh! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36376144)

Actually, the word is 'titties'.

Re:Ooh! Ooh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375718)

Read the Bible. He was ministering to those in the spirit world.

Re:Ooh! Ooh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36376146)

3 Days! My grandparents died years ago and I'm still waiting for their respawn.

Prior art (2)

SMoynihan (1647997) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374596)

I wonder how he'll deal with all the prior art... I mean, we're talking tens of thousands of years here.

Re:Prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36374966)

I mean, we're talking tens of thousands of years here.

Only 7000, according to Rev. Camping.

Re:Prior art (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375862)

I mean, we're talking tens of thousands of years here.

Only 7000, according to Rev. Camping.

Looking at pictures of Camping, I would believe him. He looks like he was there!

Hearsay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375414)

That's all hearsay, show me some real evidence.

Re:Prior art (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375528)

Hm. I still see a way to circumvent that, in the form of a claim directed at a "Method for controlling godly powers by a human". Jesus, being an aspect of god himself, would not qualify as prior art here. Other miracles are, according to the mythology, not controlled by humans, but granted by god. You can only ask for it, not control it. So, no prior art there. Obviously, I would raise the objection that he can't disclose his method in a clear and unambiguous way that would allow the man skilled in the art to reproduce it. Then again, who is the man skilled in the art here? As an IP professional, I am starting to find this intriguing. Might be that I - just coming from a hearing - am still in bullshit overdrive, but still...

On year statutory bar (5, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374658)

If he says that he is Christ, then he's clearly publicly disclosed his "invention" 2000 years ago. The one year statutory bar prevents him from receiving a patent on this. Thus, the powers of Christ is in the public domain.

Re:On year statutory bar (5, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374876)

If he says that he is Christ, then he's clearly publicly disclosed his "invention" 2000 years ago. The one year statutory bar prevents him from receiving a patent on this. Thus, the powers of Christ is in the public domain.

Ah, but computers are relatively new, so using "Powers of Christ" "on a computer" will surely be patentable.

I mean, gestures aren't patentable, unless you're using them on a computer, and math isn't patentable -- unless it's the instructions that make up software in a computer...

Re:On year statutory bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375060)

Since GOD is everlasting, does this fall afoul of the ban on perpetual motion devices?

Re:On year statutory bar (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375650)

No, because I haven't seen any religious person ever move. At least they're kinda immobile in their set of believes.

Re:On year statutory bar (1)

alexo (9335) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375680)

Since GOD is everlasting, does this fall afoul of the ban on perpetual motion devices?

Sadly, no. According to doctrine, god is also omnipresent, thus no motion takes place.

Re:On year statutory bar (1)

PoolOfThought (1492445) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375908)

To be correct there is no ban on perpetual motion devices being patented. There is simply a requirement that any patent on a perpetual motion device have a working prototype available. No other type of invention has this requirement.

Re:On year statutory bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375432)

But how would one express the Powers of Christ in a computer?
I can understand the Powers of 2 in a computer, but Christ? Christ, that is confusing to think about.

Re:On year statutory bar (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 2 years ago | (#36376036)

Oooh, we need to get "Laying on of hands on a touchscreen mobile device with a screen over 3.0 inches, to heal people remotely over a wireless network" here on Slashdot, in public domain now, so that we have reference to prior art.

Re:On year statutory bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36376110)

One could argue Christ did not disclose the actual mechanisms of action in his powers. At least not so that one knowledgeable in the art could reproduce them. He kept details a trade secret. So while "God like powers" as a broad claim might have prior art, particualr embodiments are still up for grabs.

Why not? (2)

second_coming (2014346) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374662)

No sillier than all the recent gesture / software patent applications :)

Re:Why not? (2)

MokuMokuRyoushi (1701196) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374720)

I'm actually hoping he gets the patent - maybe then the rest of the country will start saying "wtf guys?"

Re:Why not? (1)

ndavis (1499237) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374808)

I agree it would show that the people in the USPTO have no idea how to research a patent. This is why some of the people I know in the patent office quit and why some worked till they were medically unable to (afraid patents would get through that have prior work or are unworkable).

Re:Why not? (1)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374960)

This is exactly what beleaguered trial lawyers, hit hard by the recession need. In the past lawyers had to make due with suing major corporations and state entities for acts of human stupidity. Now they can friggin sue God. How great is that? Think of all the innocent flood victims who finally can be re-compensated for their deaths. Think of all the victims of cancer, who can finally be made right for having been given a compromised immune system. Yes sireee, this is the best think since lawn gnomes.

-The writer of the post is a fagot, and doesn't know who to spel.

-American Trial Lawyer association.

This is what we get (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374704)

when working models are no longer required. This and patent trolls.

Re:This is what we get (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375896)

we are the working models. what more proof do you need?

Thought this was The Onion for a second .. (1)

n5vb (587569) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374714)

.. still not quite sure, reading the article. :p

Not patentable (1)

janus01 (164330) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374768)

The New Testament is 2000 year old prior art. Jesus's powers are not patentable under (at least) 35 USC 102.

This is not the USPTO's first trip to the crazypants rodeo.

Re:Not patentable (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375702)

IIRC there's nowhere in the NT or OT anything about how anyone produced a miracle. Describe how you deem it possible to do one (after all, you don't actually have to perform one, just describe how you would do it), and you're in.

Well there goes all the (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374774)

dooms day predictions for the next 30 years. The real Christ won't be able to use his Godly powers until the patent runs out or until he pays a license fee. So unless he's planning a rapture sometime soon, I guess we can relax until the end of epoch time.

What next? (4, Funny)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374784)

What's next some guy tries to patent his sexual technique so he can troll porn companies by sueing them when they use it?

Re:What next? (1)

MokuMokuRyoushi (1701196) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374806)

Hey, that's not bad! Thanks for the tip!

Re:What next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36374982)

That's what she said.

Re:What next? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375726)

And since you don't even have to produce a working model anymore, even us geeks here can come up with one that we developed on one of the various sex-IRC chats ... erh... that I heard existed...

Re:What next? (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374910)

It would be one of the few legitimate excuses to submit a schematic drawing of your genitalia to a government office...

On the other hand, matters could get rather humiliating when the porn industry comes to trial and argues that "the 'apparatus' covered by claimant's patent is clearly of such dimensional disparity with the apparatus in common industry use that the applicable methods cannot be judged to be sufficiently similar to be infringing..."

Re:What next? (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375070)

But the claimant could say he was a person having ordinary skill in the art... :-)

Re:What next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375336)

Surely Kruger-Dunning applies, and everyone thinks they have extraordinary skill in the art?

Re:What next? (1)

habig (12787) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375874)

It would be one of the few legitimate excuses to submit a schematic drawing of your genitalia to a government office...

Sounds like a great way to get congressional support, seems at least several congresscritters would love to do this.

Lots of prior art? (1)

stephathome (1862868) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374788)

I'm thinking there's lots of prior art on this one. How else would there be terms such as "godly powers?"

What about MY godly powers? (2)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374824)

I permit the sun to rise every morning but you don't see me trying to patent it, jerk.

Re:What about MY godly powers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375242)

The sun rises?

Re:What about MY godly powers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375342)

I permit the sun to rise every morning but you don't see me trying to patent it, jerk.

That only points to the fact that you are an idiot, who has no desire to make money

//scrambles to patent an unoriginal idea.

Re:What about MY godly powers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375400)

I permit you to permit the sun to rise, and I have in fact patented it.

God has a wicked sense of humor :) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36374838)

If this is Christ he's having a laugh, if it isn't Christ then the real Christ most likely is still having a laugh XD ... and if it's the anti-Christ then everything will be sorted out soon enough (lets be honest, look at our selves and how much we still haven't done right, and repent), and while God may be crying he'll understand if this part made you chuckle :)

And just in case people have forgotten: God loves atheists too.

Re:God has a wicked sense of humor :) (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375752)

I'm quite convinced God found atheists incredibly funny. If he existed.

I deduce from me, being an atheist, finding the idea of a God hilarious.

No can do, Sonny Jim. (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374866)

The whole point of a patent is disclosure in exchange for a monopoly of limited term. Since it has been repeatedly emphasized that God works in mysterious ways to which mortals are not privy, clearly the apparatus and method in question have not been adequately disclosed to the copyright office.

Arguably, since God has retained these powers as a closely held Mystery, licenced only on a limited basis to his fertilitity and translation services provider subsidiary, Holy Spirit LLC, and a number of middle-eastern contractors to which he has outsourced prophetic work over the years, Godly power would be better served by Trade Secret, rather than Patent, protection...

Re:No can do, Sonny Jim. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375812)

And this is exactly why we need patents! If God could have patented his powers, there would not have been the need to keep the inner working secret and by now the patent could have run out... wait, what? Lifetime of the inventor plus 70 years? So? When did the old geezer die? Uh? God is WHAT? What is he, a corporation?

Right on buddy! (1)

Smigh (1634175) | more than 2 years ago | (#36374868)

Good for him. I wouldn't want anyone else using godly powers if I came up with them. They better grant the patent too or they might get smitted!

I'm patenting satanic powers right now!

You idiot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36374870)

Jeremiah 14:14

Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy
  unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

Mark 13:5-6

  5 And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:

  6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Luke 21:8

And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

Matthew 24:5

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Re:You idiot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36376164)

Anonymous Coward 42:1
And thus spake the profit, thou shalt not patent the powers of the LORD, for they are everlasting.

Such Power! but he forgot to add: "on a Computer" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36374962)

Excuse me, I'm off to patent my Method and Apparatus for making Cowardly comments appear Anonymously -- via computer -- on the Internet! -- or Claims 1. and 3. by way of "smart" phone!

Final Rejection (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375134)

If the claimant truly possessed the powers which he claimed, there would be no need for him to delegate protection of his rights to those Powers to the Patent Office. Combined with omniscience which would allow the claimant to know when his rights were being infringed, a large thunderbolt would be an effective enforcement method, and much quicker than the courts of then Eastern District of Texas,

To quote Jack Arnold Alexander Tancred Gurney (2)

magusxxx (751600) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375146)

"How do you know you're God?" - "Because when I pray I find I'm talking to myself."

Does he go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375420)

"Urrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!! Auuuuuuuuuuuuuugh!!!!!!!!!! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........"

+8 dork points, if you get the reference.

Captcha: bunk mate

Jobs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375428)

am I the only one who sees irony/humor in this being the story right below Steve's plans for Applantis?

also, does Larry Ellison count as prior art?

Disclosure (2)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375448)

As part of the patent application, doesn't he need to disclose how others can acquire godly powers?

Re:Disclosure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36375814)

So I can license the powers from him? Awesome!

Wait, here's a better idea: (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375456)

Have someone patent the process by which you protest at the funeral of U.S. soldiers, and trademark phrases like "God hates fags". Then when it's all granted, sue the living fuck out of WBT.
I'm only half kidding, and I'm sure as hell not trolling. It would be completely outrageous, but it would also be so chock full 'o WIN that I think I would just burst.

Re:Wait, here's a better idea: (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375798)

I have a feeling the result would be the patent holder getting a royalty check out of every god Hates Fags sign made... and it would be business as usual for the WBT

This guy is a genius (2)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375618)

I'm all for it! Basically, he's arguing that if software patents are valid, then his patents must also be valid. It probably won't be granted (but who knows these days?), but anything that highlights exactly how idiotic software patents really are. Think of his as the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Bilski. Go, crazy dude! Rock on, useful idiot!

2000 year old prior art (1)

SlithyMagister (822218) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375636)

Maybe even older
Doubt that the originators of the prior art will oppose the patent in person, but if I was this dude, I would not be messing about with the originators of the Godly Powers.

A True American Religion (1)

sorak (246725) | more than 2 years ago | (#36375710)

From TFA, it seems like he is patenting the business model used to exploit such powers almost as much as the powers itself.

Of course, maybe I am misunderstanding it. The mix of law, religion, business, and plain-old-fashioned crazy is giving this a cthulu-like quality.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...