Slashdot Mirror

It's fair to note that others used the term prior to 1966 (Marvel/DC's claimed date of first use on their federal trademark registration).

http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_s.7 _0_A/7_0_1I1/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.gov.uspto.tow.actions. DetailViewAction/.c/6_0_CH/.ce/7_0_1JJ/.p/5_0_1CH/ .d/0?isSubmitted=true&details=&SELECT=US+Serial+No &TEXT=73222079#

However, trademark law is not like patents or copyrights -- Who invented the term or when is somewhat irrelevant from the TM law point of view. Many trademarks are composed of words that date way way back -- Just to pick one at random, BANANA BOAT is a mark for sunglasses:

http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_s.7 _0_A/7_0_1I1/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.gov.uspto.tow.actions. DetailViewAction/.c/6_0_CH/.ce/7_0_1JJ/.p/5_0_1CH/ .d/0?isSubmitted=true&details=&SELECT=US+Serial+No &TEXT=75590185#

Those two words were obviously coined long before 1995.

What's relevant is whether or not the public had come to associate SUPER HEROES exclusively with Marvel/DC -- If so, they are within their right to claim TM rights, if not they should not. (There's also a question of genericness, but note that Marvel/DC's claims regard comic books, not the heroes themselves -- SUPER HERO is not generic for comic book.) I think that latter proposition is open to MUCH argument, but that's the real question that needs to be answered, not who invented the term first.

It's fair to note that others used the term prior to 1966 (Marvel/DC's claimed date of first use on their federal trademark registration).

http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_s.7 _0_A/7_0_1I1/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.gov.uspto.tow.actions. DetailViewAction/.c/6_0_CH/.ce/7_0_1JJ/.p/5_0_1CH/ .d/0?isSubmitted=true&details=&SELECT=US+Serial+No &TEXT=73222079#

However, trademark law is not like patents or copyrights -- Who invented the term or when is somewhat irrelevant from the TM law point of view. Many trademarks are composed of words that date way way back -- Just to pick one at random, BANANA BOAT is a mark for sunglasses:

http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_s.7 _0_A/7_0_1I1/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.gov.uspto.tow.actions. DetailViewAction/.c/6_0_CH/.ce/7_0_1JJ/.p/5_0_1CH/ .d/0?isSubmitted=true&details=&SELECT=US+Serial+No &TEXT=75590185#

Those two words were obviously coined long before 1995.

What's relevant is whether or not the public had come to associate SUPER HEROES exclusively with Marvel/DC -- If so, they are within their right to claim TM rights, if not they should not. (There's also a question of genericness, but note that Marvel/DC's claims regard comic books, not the heroes themselves -- SUPER HERO is not generic for comic book.) I think that latter proposition is open to MUCH argument, but that's the real question that needs to be answered, not who invented the term first.

Nintendo was granted a patent on emulation on handheld console emulating older handheld consoles

Actually, US Patent 6,672,963 assigned to Nintendo covers a method of turning on speed hacks within handheld emulators based on identifying the title of the ROM. This patent is likely to be found invalid, as emulators have included title-specific hacks long before November 2000.

Not so smart, are you?

Here

I didn't even have to search, its posted about 20 times in the comments of the story.

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=78356610 http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=76526513 (ice cream, actually) http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=73222079 (dear lord, I posted elsewhere that there's no way the USPTO would allow that mark to be registered for those goods. Is it even remotely possible the term wasn't in generic use 25 years ago??)

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=78356610 http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=76526513 (ice cream, actually) http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=73222079 (dear lord, I posted elsewhere that there's no way the USPTO would allow that mark to be registered for those goods. Is it even remotely possible the term wasn't in generic use 25 years ago??)

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=78356610 http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=76526513 (ice cream, actually) http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=73222079 (dear lord, I posted elsewhere that there's no way the USPTO would allow that mark to be registered for those goods. Is it even remotely possible the term wasn't in generic use 25 years ago??)

I think yes, the term is used for a lot of things. Here's what the patent and trademark office shows regarding this:

SUPERHERO is owned by David & Goliath, Inc. for use on clothing
SUPER HERO Oooh, this one's for skin cream
So it isn't reserved across everything, where is it reserved?

SUPER HEROES FOUND IT!!!
Goods and services: " PUBLICATIONS, PARTICULARLY COMIC BOOKS AND MAGAZINES AND STORIES IN ILLUSTRATED FORM [(( ; CARDBOARD STAND-UP FIGURES; PLAYING CARDS; PAPER IRON-ON TRANSFER; ERASERS; PENCIL SHARPENERS; PENCILS; GLUE FOR OFFICE AND HOME USE, SUCH AS IS SOLD AS STATIONERY SUPPLY;] NOTEBOOKS AND STAMP ALBUMS )). FIRST USE: 19661000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19661000"
So, they technically can ONLY press this against comic book writers (and other publishers).

I think yes, the term is used for a lot of things. Here's what the patent and trademark office shows regarding this:

SUPERHERO is owned by David & Goliath, Inc. for use on clothing
SUPER HERO Oooh, this one's for skin cream
So it isn't reserved across everything, where is it reserved?

SUPER HEROES FOUND IT!!!
Goods and services: " PUBLICATIONS, PARTICULARLY COMIC BOOKS AND MAGAZINES AND STORIES IN ILLUSTRATED FORM [(( ; CARDBOARD STAND-UP FIGURES; PLAYING CARDS; PAPER IRON-ON TRANSFER; ERASERS; PENCIL SHARPENERS; PENCILS; GLUE FOR OFFICE AND HOME USE, SUCH AS IS SOLD AS STATIONERY SUPPLY;] NOTEBOOKS AND STAMP ALBUMS )). FIRST USE: 19661000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19661000"
So, they technically can ONLY press this against comic book writers (and other publishers).

I think yes, the term is used for a lot of things. Here's what the patent and trademark office shows regarding this:

SUPERHERO is owned by David & Goliath, Inc. for use on clothing
SUPER HERO Oooh, this one's for skin cream
So it isn't reserved across everything, where is it reserved?

SUPER HEROES FOUND IT!!!
Goods and services: " PUBLICATIONS, PARTICULARLY COMIC BOOKS AND MAGAZINES AND STORIES IN ILLUSTRATED FORM [(( ; CARDBOARD STAND-UP FIGURES; PLAYING CARDS; PAPER IRON-ON TRANSFER; ERASERS; PENCIL SHARPENERS; PENCILS; GLUE FOR OFFICE AND HOME USE, SUCH AS IS SOLD AS STATIONERY SUPPLY;] NOTEBOOKS AND STAMP ALBUMS )). FIRST USE: 19661000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19661000"
So, they technically can ONLY press this against comic book writers (and other publishers).

This country is going to have to come to a serious reckoning very soon on the subject of Intellectual Property. I may be annoyed by HBO threatening to sue me over shifting a few bits around the network, but there are things far worse. My mother recently had her gall bladder removed. But what if her doctor had not been able to tell her the result of the test to determine that because someone else held a patent on that diagnosis? I do understand the need for patents. It is entirely reasonable to protect an idea long enough for a company to produce a product and start making money. However, when a company can file patents and put them in a drawer waiting to sue someone who actually figures out how to implement them ( NPT vs. Blackberry); Microsoft can patent "A method, comprising: selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon; assigning a character sequence to the pixels; and transmitting the character sequence to a destination to allow for reconstruction of the pixels at the destination" (Smiley Face Patent); and, as mentioned in Crichton's article, a company can patent a link between elevated homocysteine levels and vitamin deficiency, something needs to be done.

If you use the "TARR Status" page from the databases, that link is static:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=72243225

Problem with that one is that it's for "masquerade costumes". Wouldn't seem relevant to a newly-published comic book. And besides, there's no way in hell the USPTO is going to let "SUPERHERO" for comic books through even with a claim of acquired distinctiveness.

Trademarks are supposed to register a word in reference to a specific good or service. This one seems to refer to masquerade costumes and the word superhero.

If you go to the Trademark Website, http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm you can search trademarks. Searching for "superhero" and "super hero" yields quite a few hits. I didn't check all of them to see if any refer to using the word in a comic book.

Datadood

Or 5,346,998, a naturally occurring DNA sequence in Pentadiplandra brazzeana.

Hmmm...the link didn't work (seems it is based on a session), but regardless, you can do a search HERE, and see that there are dozens of trademarks that have been granted using the name "superhero" or "super hero".
 
Why would the trademake office grant these trademarks, if they infringed on the DC/Marvel trademark?

All right, fair enough. I don't know -- and that's a good point. I remember Celera attempting to patent chunks of the human genome directly, and I simply grabbed a Celera patent related to a sequence of genes. I don't have any evidence that this particular one is indeed naturally occurring, and the patent I referenced is too new to have anything written about it.

Here's a better example -- example -- 5,693,473. This patent is on a naturally-occurring set of mutations that cause breast cancer.

Registration Date

March 14, 1967

Owner

(REGISTRANT) BEN COOPER, INC. CORPORATION NEW YORK 33 34TH ST. BROOKLYN NEW YORK

(LAST LISTED OWNER) DC COMICS, INC. CORPORATION ASSIGNEE OF NEW YORK 666 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK NEW YORK 10103

(LAST LISTED OWNER) MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. CORPORATION ASSIGNEE OF DELAWARE 387 PARK AVENUE SOUTH NEW YORK NEW YORK 10016

3)

        Nevertheless 20 percent of the genome is now privately owned.

The genes themselves are not owned. A "product of nature" - a naturally occurring substance discovered in the wild - may not be patented per se.
However, a method for extracting, isolating, and purifying a gene may be patentable. But keep in mind that patents only last for 20 years - so these patented methods will be publicly available for free in less than 20 years. And others are still free to find other methods of extraction.

Completely wrong. I'd like to refer you to one of Celera's patents, 7005286. This is very clearly a patent on not merely a sequence of genes, but a pattern that may match many genes. Here's claim 1:



1. An isolated nucleic acid molecule comprising a nucleotide sequence selected from the group consisting of:

(a) a transcript or cDNA sequence that encodes a polypeptide having an amino acid sequence comprising SEQ ID NO:2;

(b) SEQ ID NO:1;

(c) nueleotides 91-2187 of SEQ ID NO:1; and

(d) a nucleotide sequence that is completely complementary to the nucleotide sequence of (a), (b), or (c).

Interesting, eh?

Certainly Mr. Crichton can afford an introductory class in patent law.
Hopefully he will be better informed the next time he publishes an essay.
Because this type of uninformed nonsense passed off as fact is really annoying.

I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think that Mr. Crichton is the one who needs to be questioned.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,022,227.WKU.&OS=PN/4,022,227&RS =PN/4,022,227

Paramount Pictures Corp - USS Enterprise - Patent D260789
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D260789.WKU.&OS=PN/D260789&RS=PN/ D260789

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Phaser - Patent D259939
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D259939.WKU.&OS=PN/D259939&RS=PN/ D259939

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Insignia Pin - Patent D261872
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D261872.WKU.&OS=PN/D261872&RS=PN/ D261872

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Uniform - D279135
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D279135.WKU.&OS=PN/D279135&RS=PN/ D279135

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Font - Patent D262037
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D262037.WKU.&OS=PN/D262037&RS=PN/ D262037

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Klingon Battle Crusier - Patent
D263856
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D263856.WKU.&OS=PN/D263856&RS=PN/ D263856

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Miranda Class Starship - Patent
D272839
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D272839.WKU.&OS=PN/D272839&RS=PN/ D272839

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Wrath of Khan parasite - Patent
D275777
http://patft.usp

Paramount Pictures Corp - USS Enterprise - Patent D260789
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D260789.WKU.&OS=PN/D260789&RS=PN/ D260789

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Phaser - Patent D259939
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D259939.WKU.&OS=PN/D259939&RS=PN/ D259939

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Insignia Pin - Patent D261872
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D261872.WKU.&OS=PN/D261872&RS=PN/ D261872

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Uniform - D279135
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D279135.WKU.&OS=PN/D279135&RS=PN/ D279135

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Font - Patent D262037
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D262037.WKU.&OS=PN/D262037&RS=PN/ D262037

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Klingon Battle Crusier - Patent
D263856
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D263856.WKU.&OS=PN/D263856&RS=PN/ D263856

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Miranda Class Starship - Patent
D272839
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D272839.WKU.&OS=PN/D272839&RS=PN/ D272839

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Wrath of Khan parasite - Patent
D275777
http://patft.usp

Paramount Pictures Corp - USS Enterprise - Patent D260789
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D260789.WKU.&OS=PN/D260789&RS=PN/ D260789

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Phaser - Patent D259939
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D259939.WKU.&OS=PN/D259939&RS=PN/ D259939

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Insignia Pin - Patent D261872
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D261872.WKU.&OS=PN/D261872&RS=PN/ D261872

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Uniform - D279135
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D279135.WKU.&OS=PN/D279135&RS=PN/ D279135

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Font - Patent D262037
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D262037.WKU.&OS=PN/D262037&RS=PN/ D262037

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Klingon Battle Crusier - Patent
D263856
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D263856.WKU.&OS=PN/D263856&RS=PN/ D263856

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Miranda Class Starship - Patent
D272839
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D272839.WKU.&OS=PN/D272839&RS=PN/ D272839

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Wrath of Khan parasite - Patent
D275777
http://patft.usp

Paramount Pictures Corp - USS Enterprise - Patent D260789
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D260789.WKU.&OS=PN/D260789&RS=PN/ D260789

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Phaser - Patent D259939
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D259939.WKU.&OS=PN/D259939&RS=PN/ D259939

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Insignia Pin - Patent D261872
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D261872.WKU.&OS=PN/D261872&RS=PN/ D261872

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Uniform - D279135
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D279135.WKU.&OS=PN/D279135&RS=PN/ D279135

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Font - Patent D262037
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D262037.WKU.&OS=PN/D262037&RS=PN/ D262037

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Klingon Battle Crusier - Patent
D263856
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D263856.WKU.&OS=PN/D263856&RS=PN/ D263856

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Miranda Class Starship - Patent
D272839
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D272839.WKU.&OS=PN/D272839&RS=PN/ D272839

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Wrath of Khan parasite - Patent
D275777
http://patft.usp

Paramount Pictures Corp - USS Enterprise - Patent D260789
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D260789.WKU.&OS=PN/D260789&RS=PN/ D260789

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Phaser - Patent D259939
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D259939.WKU.&OS=PN/D259939&RS=PN/ D259939

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Insignia Pin - Patent D261872
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D261872.WKU.&OS=PN/D261872&RS=PN/ D261872

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Uniform - D279135
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D279135.WKU.&OS=PN/D279135&RS=PN/ D279135

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Font - Patent D262037
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D262037.WKU.&OS=PN/D262037&RS=PN/ D262037

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Klingon Battle Crusier - Patent
D263856
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D263856.WKU.&OS=PN/D263856&RS=PN/ D263856

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Miranda Class Starship - Patent
D272839
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D272839.WKU.&OS=PN/D272839&RS=PN/ D272839

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Wrath of Khan parasite - Patent
D275777
http://patft.usp

Paramount Pictures Corp - USS Enterprise - Patent D260789
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D260789.WKU.&OS=PN/D260789&RS=PN/ D260789

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Phaser - Patent D259939
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D259939.WKU.&OS=PN/D259939&RS=PN/ D259939

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Insignia Pin - Patent D261872
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D261872.WKU.&OS=PN/D261872&RS=PN/ D261872

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Uniform - D279135
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D279135.WKU.&OS=PN/D279135&RS=PN/ D279135

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Font - Patent D262037
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D262037.WKU.&OS=PN/D262037&RS=PN/ D262037

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Klingon Battle Crusier - Patent
D263856
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D263856.WKU.&OS=PN/D263856&RS=PN/ D263856

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Miranda Class Starship - Patent
D272839
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D272839.WKU.&OS=PN/D272839&RS=PN/ D272839

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Wrath of Khan parasite - Patent
D275777
http://patft.usp

Paramount Pictures Corp - USS Enterprise - Patent D260789
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D260789.WKU.&OS=PN/D260789&RS=PN/ D260789

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Phaser - Patent D259939
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D259939.WKU.&OS=PN/D259939&RS=PN/ D259939

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Insignia Pin - Patent D261872
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D261872.WKU.&OS=PN/D261872&RS=PN/ D261872

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Uniform - D279135
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D279135.WKU.&OS=PN/D279135&RS=PN/ D279135

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Font - Patent D262037
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D262037.WKU.&OS=PN/D262037&RS=PN/ D262037

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Klingon Battle Crusier - Patent
D263856
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D263856.WKU.&OS=PN/D263856&RS=PN/ D263856

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Miranda Class Starship - Patent
D272839
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D272839.WKU.&OS=PN/D272839&RS=PN/ D272839

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Wrath of Khan parasite - Patent
D275777
http://patft.usp

Paramount Pictures Corp - USS Enterprise - Patent D260789
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D260789.WKU.&OS=PN/D260789&RS=PN/ D260789

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Phaser - Patent D259939
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D259939.WKU.&OS=PN/D259939&RS=PN/ D259939

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Insignia Pin - Patent D261872
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D261872.WKU.&OS=PN/D261872&RS=PN/ D261872

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Uniform - D279135
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D279135.WKU.&OS=PN/D279135&RS=PN/ D279135

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Font - Patent D262037
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D262037.WKU.&OS=PN/D262037&RS=PN/ D262037

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Klingon Battle Crusier - Patent
D263856
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D263856.WKU.&OS=PN/D263856&RS=PN/ D263856

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Miranda Class Starship - Patent
D272839
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D272839.WKU.&OS=PN/D272839&RS=PN/ D272839

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Wrath of Khan parasite - Patent
D275777
http://patft.usp

The USPTO has a page clearly explaining what can be patented:

A few choice excerpts:
In the language of the statute, any person who "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,"

The terms are then defined:
The word "process" is defined by law as a process, act or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes.
So "process" really means processes, and "acts" and "methods" as well.

The term "machine" used in the statute needs no explanation.
Gee, thanks for that "explanation".

Some more gems:
The term "manufacture" refers to articles which are made, and includes all manufactured articles.
These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything which is made by man and the processes for making the products.
The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose

These guys really need a primer on "circular definitions".

I'll be happy to start them off: Circular definitions are definitions that are, ya know, circular.

It is patented. You don't get all the details/modifications that google may have made but it is enough for an idea of how pagerank works and it is no doubt still in the same use but with more tweaks: Patent 6,285,999

However pagerank itself is viewable by anyone with the technical knowhow to understand it.

Read U.S. Pat. No. 6,526,440. Seriously, it's quite informative.

The PageRank algorithm is patented (patent 6,285,999) and public.

But Google's results are much more than page rank. It also involves other algorithms relating to the search keys for a particular search. And there are tuning factors to the particular PageRank implementation. Google's proprietary tweaks keep ahead of the people who try to artificially inflate their page rank (like, apparently, these guys). Those are secret, and search engine optimizers would dearly love to know them so that they could fake out Google.

You are incorrect. You cannot trademark the sans-serif font (I believe that would be copywritten by the font foundry), but you can definitely trademark a particular word, written in a particular font. It's called a "Typed Drawing" in USPTOese.

Apple has half a dozen different trademarks on the "iPod" name, for various uses, but the 'Typed Drawing' trademark, as opposed to the trademark just on the word itself (the "standard character mark"), is 78089144. Here is a link, although I'm not sure if it will work. If it doesn't, you can also just search the USPTO's site for the trademark number.

And in looking at the iUpload's logo again, even if this weren't the case they might still be infringing, since when you look at their logo, becase of the font difference, "iPod" is readable almost as a distinct word from the rest of the letters; even if they just changed the font I think they'd still run into Apple's standard character mark.

At the end of the day, you also have to consider how much money Apple has, and how much cash they could burn protecting their trademarks. They've done it before -- with the vague iMac lookalikes a few years back -- and eventually won. So even if their case was lacking in merit, they could probably bankrupt a small firm through aggressive legal action (although in this case I think they'd have more than enough grounds).

(As for colors, you can trademark them also. Kodak, for example, has a trademark on a very distinct shade of yellow, when used in particular contexts. More on trade dress at Nolo.com.)

Um, you might be interested in this: urban legend

Here's the important excerpt from that page:

Rumor has it... that a Patent Office official resigned and recommended that the Patent Office be closed because he thought that everything that could possibly be invented had already been invented!

While that statement makes good fun of predictions that do not come to pass, it is none the less just a myth. Researchers have found no evidence that any official or employee of the U.S. Patent Office had ever resigned because there was nothing left to invent. A clue to the origin of the myth may be found in Patent Office Commissioner Henry Ellsworth's 1843 report to Congress. In it he states, "The advancement of the arts, from year to year, taxes our credulity and seems to presage the arrival of that period when human improvement must end." But Commissioner Ellsworth was simply using a bit of rhetorical flourish to emphasize the growing number of patents as presented in the rest of the report. He even outlined specific areas in which he expected patent activity to increase in the future.

Taken out of context, such remarks take on a life of their own and are perpetuated in publication after publication whose authors, rather than check facts, copy and quote each other. For example, recent publications have attributed the "everything that has been invented..." quote to a later commissioner, Charles H. Duell, who held that office in 1899. Unlike Ellsworth, who may have been merely misquoted, there is absolutely no basis to support Duell's alleged statement. Just the opposite is true. Duell's 1899 report documents an increase of about 3,000 patents over the previous year, and nearly 60 times the number granted in 1837. Further, Duell quotes President McKinley's annual message saying, "Our future progress and prosperity depend upon our ability to equal, if not surpass, other nations in the enlargement and advance of science, industry and commerce. To invention we must turn as one of the most powerful aids to the accomplishment of such a result." Duell adds, "May not our inventors hopefully look to the Fifty-sixth Congress for aid and effectual encouragement in improving the American patent system?" These are unlikely words of someone who thinks that everything has been invented.

[Joe Blade 2 is] prior art from 1988.

Joe Blade 2 may be prior art for some of the claims of US Patent 5,718,632 assigned to Namco, as may some other games mentioned in this thread on IGDA Forums, but claim 12 refers explicitly to an optical disk. At the time, Spectrum games were distributed on cassette, not Compact Disc Digital Audio. So even if none of the rest of the claims hold up under reexamination, if Namco was the first to do it with a CD, claim 12 may remain valid against Linux distributors.

a) It's the name of a song, not a movie.
b) Titles can't be copyrighted.
c) Trademarks can only be enforced against confusingly similar products. IE, not a search engine vs. a theme park.
d) The Disney spelling is Hakuna Matata.
e) The tradmark is Class 25 (See: Your own link) which means it's for clothing.

So no, to answer your question, they're not.

Did you read that [a movie well-protected by Disney copyrights and trademarks is] actually where the name came from?

Are the operators of this search engine expecting a letter from Disney's lawyers? (cite: tarr)

As long as you don't give any points for performing "feats of style that are not necessary tasks of the game"...

link

Nonstatutory (method of doing business)

As of 1998 you are dead wrong on this count, see State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.

Obvious (does not take an inventor to "buy it now" at a predetermined price)

I have no idea what standards of "obvious" you are using here, but I reccomend checking out the actual standards in the MPEP, specifically sections 2141-2144.

...Sort of. Patent number 6,368,227, filed November 17, 2000, and granted April 9, 2002: Method of swinging on a swing: "A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other." It's for real:

You are not free to invent definitions for phrases that have specific meanings. If you'd like to know what a business method patent is, read what the Patent Office has to say about them. You might learn that the first business patent was issued on January 8, 1889 to Herman Hollerith's newly-formed Tabulating Machine Company. In 1924, the company changed its name to International Business Machine Corporation, whom you may have heard of. Without business method patents, Hollerith's company wouldn't have been able to survive, and we wouldn't be thanking IBM for investing billions in Linux.

If you want to get into technical details of it then you are correct. However, given the legal knowledge of the average slashdotter, I've found its best not to get to in depth with the details of 102(a), 102(b), 102(e), 103(c) and the requirements for 1.131 affadavits which would need to be filed in order to make a rejection based on 102(a/e).

Also going directly to the statutes isn't always the greatest idea because you are ignoring the mountains of case law regarding those statutes. It would be better to go to the MPEP, specifically chapters 0700 and 2100.

I think the problem is that you don't know what you're talking about. You only have a basic, if any, knowledge of what patents are, and how they are enforced. Just because they have a patent releated to how eBay does business, doesn't mean that you can make these broad generalizations about all commerce which will invalidate the patent.

Look here to see some of the patents by the company. I haven't dug deep enough too see which one is in question, but actually open one and look at the claims section. The claims are what bounds a patent. The claims here are talking about electronic commerce systems, so they obviuosly have nothing to do with Grandma selling cookies. Even the vast majority of e-commerce has nothing to do with this issue.
Read the claims.

USPTO link for 5,960,411

Then again, Buy It Now does involve more than one step...

Electronic commerce on the Internet generally can be organized into two categories, database driven applications and indexing or information portal services. Database driven applications can be further categorized as either transactional or non-transactional applications. Auction sites such as ebay.TM. are non-transactional database driven applications in that transactions are external to the ebay system and between third party participants that use the system, i.e., ebay as a web site and on-line commerce application does not process payment information or require payment information to participate in the system. Ebay type non-transactional systems are a source of dynamic pricing information.

Or Shit!

It's a good thing you didn't say it was "pure crap", because that's trademarked.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=2&p=1 &f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=MercExchange&OS=MercExchange&R S=MercExchange

Patent information.

...as many in just one year. So can someone tell me where the nearest church of Islam is so that I can convert?

I believe you are referring to the Patent Reform Act of 2005[1]. This legislation would effectively eviscerate the novelty bars to being granted a patent based on the invention date.[2]

So they are either changing the very definition of inventor in a way that is clearly nonsensical, that is, that the first person to file for a patent is the inventor even if someone else had already done it months earlier.

Except that pretty much every other country works on a first-to-file system. In fact the Philippines just switched to that system. On top of which, the US can use the bill as a carrot in international trade negotiations. I.e., the US ambassador says to $COUNTRY: "We'll bring our patent system in line with yours, if you give us X."

The only fair and honest approach is to either grant patent protection to multiple inventors or to grant patent protection only to the very first inventor.

The problems with first-to-invent are well-documented. For one thing, it causes tremendous transaction costs in case of a dispute.[3] Currently, under a process known as an interference, two inventors battle each other in a steel cage (i.e., in front of the USPTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences) to see which one invented first. Litigation costs are outrageous, since sometimes millions of dollars are at stake. Under a first-to-file system, the situation is resolved by someone walking to the records room and comparing the dates on two pieces of paper. Another well-known problem with first-to-invent is that, until there is a dispute, you'll never know if someone else got there first. They might not hear about your invention until you're 15 years in to profits, then they come along and submarine you. First-to-file brings much more certainty to the system. It also makes it much faster to get a patent, since you don't have to do nearly as extensive a prior art search.

What happens if someone invents something and doesn't patent it? After a period of time, he can no longer file for a patent.

Correct. Under the current system, once an invention is "in public use or on sale in this country", that starts a one-year clock ticking. After that year, the inventor can no longer apply for a patent.[4] The system gives inventors a choice: patent, or trade secret, but not both. A first-to-file system gives the inventor an incentive to file immediately, favoring a policy of the public disclosure that comes from patent publication, over the non-disclosure of trade secrets.

But if someone else comes along and independently invents the same thing, can they not still apply for a patent for the same invention?

Yes, they can. A second inventor can claim patent rights over the first one, provided the first inventor "abandoned, suppressed, or concealed" his invention.[5] However, the second inventor is also out of luck if the invention was disclosed in a printed publication anywhere in the world before the later of the second invention date or one year prior to the filing date.[6] The Patent Reform Act retains this restriction, in Section 3, at least as to the filing date.

Also, the wording of the Constitution makes it clear that an invention has only one inventor.

The Constitution states: "The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."[7] The plurals are used throughout. The Framers could have said "each author", but they didn't. However, the usual interpretation is that there is a one-to-one relationship between the 'inventing entity' and the patent.[8]

Currently, if a company knows or thinks that someone else is w

I think most people would say that a 40 inch OLED TV qualifies as 'new stuff'. And clearly, the world's best GSM cellphone of 2005 must have had something new to it. Furthermore, having over 14000 patents is also usually a sign of being innovative.