Slashdot Mirror

Ah, that makes sense. We can patent algorithms, business models, and now summer blockbuster ideas!

You joke, but this clown is actually trying to do it. (If you want to see the stunning storyline that is so brilliant it deserves a patent, look at the claim listed here.)

Ah, that makes sense. We can patent algorithms, business models, and now summer blockbuster ideas!

You joke, but this clown is actually trying to do it. (If you want to see the stunning storyline that is so brilliant it deserves a patent, look at the claim listed here.)

That's kind of the point of patent\copyright laws; Math: not patentable, Art: is patentable.

Hate to burst your logic bubble there, but guess what? Art is NOT patentable. So far, at least. (That's not to say some attorneys in the U.S. haven't tried.)

I may write a book, and it may have some very non obvious and novel story lines, but the book isn't patentable.

There might be a problem with that statement.

Imagine if you couldn't write stories containing lesbians, because that idea was currently copyrighted. Or maybe you could use lesbians unless they behaved in one of many specific ways.

You don't have to imagine much, there is a company that seems to be trying to do exactly this by patenting plots (or storylines).

Unfortunately, plots of books and movies are also being patented by people like this.

Check out these guys who seem to be interested in patenting plots for novels.

It's a proven system, over 200 years old.

If a question asks one to explain the effect of X on B and many students give the same explanation is it violation of copyrights? I don't think so.

If a question is asked and a truly innovative answer is given, perhaps worthy of a patent.

And that worthy answer is used in a way that in no way involved the IP contained in the answer, is that IP violation? I don't see how it could be remotely considered so.

The people objected to this are the people who are cheating.

IP rights has nothing to do with.

Orrin Hatch received $126,918 from the entertainment industry in this last cycle.

The entertainment industry, apart from isolated cases such as Knight & Associates, is nearly inactive in filing patents. Mr. Hatch's record on copyright law can only be an attack ad hominem without a link to the bill. I'd give one, but all the bills on thomas.loc.gov containing the phrase "patent reform" are months too old to be the bill that this article discusses.

I don't think that you can patent software anymore than you can patent a song

O rly? If you happen to hear a given song on the radio, and ten years later you write a song that happens to be similar, you have infringed copyright. See Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton. So what is the substantial difference in scope between copyright in a piece of music and a patent?

or a story.

Given this web site, are you talking is or ought?

You can trademark the name and copyright the execution - the graphical design, sounds etc, but not the idea itself.

Sure, homebrew developers could make their own takeoff on Midway's Bubbles, but then it wouldn't be a KATAMARI(tm) brand game, as rehtonAesoohC speculated. And how do you know that there aren't patents involved, in which case it's not after you're dead but still after the DS is dead?

You can copyright the sequence of words used in a book to tell a story, but not the story itself.

But you can patent the story itself.

unfortunately there are some idiots who want to patent plotlines... and this will be grist to their mill whichever way the case goes...

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/04/02 39221&tid=155=17

http://www.plotpatents.com/

This is total B.S. by the way, I am sure there is a legal standard for plagiarism, and that would be the only way a case like this can hold up. Everyone knows there's only 11 different stories. Or is it 21... Um...

If you believe the fundamental purpose of the patent system is to promote innovation for the advancement of society as a whole, then it should be obvious that not only does the current system not work, but it does the exact opposite. This is not unique to software patents, but they are one of the grosser examples, and started us down the slippery slope which has lead to business model patents and even storyline patents

If you think the purpose of patents is to enrich a few, at the expense of innovation and the population at large, then it obviously works.

Without the ability to shield innovation through patents, the software industry would have less reason to research and advance, and less means to support its constituents.

This is demonstrably false. Look at all the software innovation which happened before software was patentable. Now stop and think if every one of the technologies underlying modern computers and the Internet had been patented. Do you really think that, if every bit of software had been patented since 1960, there would have been more innovation ? The the PC and the Internet would be better than they are today ?

Tim Berners-Lee recently posed the question (paraphrased) "what would the Internet be like today if I had patented http ?"

( I can't find the exact quote, but here's a link that conveys the general idea http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1390 )

I hope it is obvious that the end result would have been something much less useful than what we have now.

Or how about the point of view of another software innovator John Carmack

Actually, I do honestly believe the system is inherently flawed, not just that it is administered poorly.

Damn near every product or idea of value has clear, traceable roots to things that have gone before, which a lawyer can easily argue are within claims filed with patents. If every innovation was protected by patent, and every product actually paid full heed to all the patents that could lay claim to it, you would basically not be able to build anything without spending far, far more time tracking down who you need to pay licensing fees to than you spend producing things of value. If a law looks absurd when applied with perfect enforcement, it isn't a good law.

Relatively few great things would disappear without patent protection. Would I stop trying to come up with innovative software? Would Intel stop trying to come up with innovative hardware? There are probably some valid cases in drug research, but I contend that most of what drives the economy takes a net negative effect from the patent system. For large companies, it is a parasitic legal cost to keep a competitive set of trading cards. For small companies, it is a sword of Damoclese hanging over their heads.

John Carmack

source: http://lists.erps.org/archives/erps-list/msg05386. shtml

Now stop and think. The above or two people who are the quintessential 'lone innovators' that the patent system is supposed to protect.

Actually, in this case, he's right.

This (http://www.plotpatents.com/legal_analysis.htm/) is a link to a storyline patent website will show you that, in fact, someone -is- pushing for storyline patents.

And in case you missed it, slashdot has talked about this before: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/04/023922 1/

It's not the Parent confusing Copyright and Patent, its things like Software patents blurring the line between the two.

It's a test case. If approved, there will be literally thousands of similar ones approved and used to harrass writers all over the world.

I found this on the asshole who is making the claim's website:

As far back as high school, [Andrew Knight] authored various works of short fiction that were published in national magazines,... Since then, he has conceived of a variety of unique fictional storylines. Recognizing that fierce competition for publication and financial reward focused on the quality of storytelling, as opposed to the quality of the underlying storyline itself, and further recognizing that even the world's most skilled storytellers (of which he is clearly not) rarely turn a profit, his unique fictional storylines have matured into pending patent applications instead of novels or screenplays. He thus seeks reward on the true value of his innovations--the underlying storylines--instead of forced, sub-par expressions of these underlying storylines.

So the same concept as submarine patents: don't create a sellable product, just patent the concept and wait to ambush someone who has the talent to think of it AND bring it to market. The main target will be movie studios I think -- already they have to fight off hacks who claim that someone read their script and stole the idea, now they'd be liable even if the "idea" was never shown to anyone or published.

And, sadly, it looks like this guy is serious. Looks like he's even set up a practice to promote helping others get storyline patents.

WTF? The "About Us" section of Knight's website states:

"Recognizing that fierce competition for publication and financial reward focused on the quality of storytelling, as opposed to the quality of the underlying storyline itself, and further recognizing that even the world's most skilled storytellers (of which he is clearly not) rarely turn a profit, his unique fictional storylines have matured into pending patent applications instead of novels or screenplays. He thus seeks reward on the true value of his innovations--the underlying storylines--instead of forced, sub-par expressions of these underlying storylines." (http://www.plotpatents.com/about_us.htm)

Basically, he wants to get paid for coming up with a story idea and not the work of turning the idea into an actual GOOD story because he is not a skilled storyteller. Here's an idea for you: (1 come up with a good story idea (2 find a skilled storyteller and (3 contract them to write the story (with both names appearing on the work maybe? or not in which case this is just hiring a ghost writer). Oh yeah, he'd have to actually DO THE WORK of looking for a skilled storyteller he is able to work with. How about this one then: (1 come up with a good story idea (2 write a BAD story (3 what for someone to copy it and (4 sue them under copyright law. Oh yeah, the duplicate story would have to be VERY similar to the original to be considered for copyright infringement and would most likely be just as bad as the original and not sell either, so he still would not get paid. I can see why so many foreigners see us Americans as lazy...

Besides, the idea behind the patent system is you can patent your idea, PRODUCE your idea (which Knight apparently IS NOT GOING TO DO with his story ideas), and try to make money from it without having to worry about a bigger competitor copying your idea and profiting from your creativity... Oh yeah, the patent system is still broken... never mind...

What on earth does the statue of the Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima have to do with this patent company's About Us page?

    They have another reason to be ashamed... Not to mention their whole site looks like it was done in Front Page. Oh wait... It was :)

meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"

info@plotpatents.com

Now I'm not going to make myself liable by putting their phone number on the internet but I think the poster above me knows where to find it...

The system is now officially broken, and anyone who takes the USPTO seriously after today is part of the problem.

Schwab

The system is now officially broken, and anyone who takes the USPTO seriously after today is part of the problem.

Schwab

This decision is quite funny. A couple of months ago, Slashdot was running a story about a piece by Richard Stallman where he made the analogy with the works of Victor Hugo being covered by patents on literary plots. Then there were some posters who thought Dr. Stallman was making an absurd comparison, and that patents on literature would never happen.

Well, well...

Meanwhile, in Europe, we have chosen another road. After the victory on July 6, when the European Parliament rejected the software directive, we now have a chance to get one of our activists to win the title "European of the Year" in an open Internet poll organized by a big business magazine.

Please feel free to go to NoSoftwarePatents.com for instructions on how to vote, while you contemplate this latest madness by the US patent establishment.

Anyone have a spare Senator they're not using?

Schwab

And while the written word is copyrightable of course, I've yet to see a patent on fantasy stories set in alternate versions of Earth, or stories involving wizards, or aliend.

Not far off. plotpatents.com

[T]he woman who writes the Harry Potter books ought to be able to patent stories about magical school kids.

Here is a link to a firm of US patent lawyers that are trying to expand patentability into plot elements in novels as well: http://www.plotpatents.com/

And after all, why shouldn't they? If they succeed, it means increased revenues for patent lawyers. If literature, freedom of expression, or society at large happen to lose as a consequence, do you think they care?

Want to get really disgusted? Take a look at what this site is advocating. I read his legal analysis. It is surprisingly strong, and almost entirely founded on the legal precedents that established software patents.

Once you introduce an error into a logic system (whther it is math or law) it is often impossible to prevent that error from spreading. If you declare that 2+2=5 then a series of valid mathematical (or legal) steps from there can and will eventually create the "valid" statement 1=2.

For what it's worth my analysis of the US foundation of software patents is that they pretty much arose from an erroneous mid-level court ruling in the State Street Bank case. A ruling that as far as I can see is in direct conflict with several Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court has not taken such a case in over twenty years, since before that State Street Bank ruling. If the Supreme Court *did* finally take a software patent case again they could simply affirm their prior rulings and declare the State Street Bank cases and other lower SW patent cases in error, in voiolation of standing Supreme COurt law on patents. The entire US SW patent system and all such granted patents would vanish in a puff of smoke.

I'd post the Supreme Court quotes and reasoning for you, but I'm exhausted and need sleep. If you're interested in seeing them, just reply and ask and I'll dig them out.

-

But Stallman is incorrect as well. By drafting 'literary claims' he insinuates that something like this would ever exist. That will never be the case.

Perhaps you should read up a little on the subject before you start declaring your views as absolute truths.

And yes, patents do cover ideas. That's the whole point with them. As opposed to copyright, which covers the expression of ideas.

Please feel free to Google for more background information before making you next post. Perhaps you will want to start with something that Dr. Stallman has written. He appears to be considerably more well informed on the subject than you.