Slashdot Mirror
Using the USPTO Against Itself
fidget42 writes: "This article in the LA Times tells of how a scientist went about using the patent office as a mechanism for trying to force a change in that office's rules. To quote from the article: 'Nearly 10 years ago, a friend called Stuart Newman with an intriguing challenge: Could he think up a new form of life that would be scientifically useful and possible to patent--yet so disturbing that the public would recoil?' Could the same be done with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) concerning software patents? I know some companies have used the rules of the USPTO to 'spoof' it, most notably Despair, Inc.'s trademarking of the frowney."
;-)
In NO way does Despair's trademark spoof the USPTO. It is a valid trademark for a valid company.
The fact that they applied for it and were granted it was SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). They then went on to joke about *patenting* the emoticon and charging people for every time it is used. This might have been the *spoof* part, but not the trademark itself. I wish that people would get this straight.
Bringing irony to the Slash-masses
"A Method to Force the USPTO to Behave in a Dignified Manner" perhaps?
I would have been tempted to patent a non-human on the basis that "being non-human, it would be unprotected as a human under law and thus able to be exploited as a beast of burden or slave". And even then it might not be morally repugnant enough!
(Hmm, I think my anti-cynic meds are wearing off...)
It seems to me that what is needed is a new declaration on human rights vs technology. The current laws on patents, copyright etc. are being bent past their ability to cope with the new technologies. There are interpretations of judgments, taking into account opinions of what was originally intended by people for whom the current situation was unthinkable. Patches on patches on patches. It's a mess.
We need something new to work from.
Maybe we need to clone some of the thinkers from the Age of Enlightenment and have them draft something for us (that would probably make their cloning illegal).
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
Let's think this through for a second. To a non-scientist, making an organism that's part mouse, part human probably sounds like something out of a science-fiction nightmare. So they react with violent emotions, imagining something with a human head, intellect, and feelings, but a mouse body. "How *dare* they suggest something could be used for medical experimentation! The patent office *must* be changed!"
In reality, if they could even get it to work (human/mouse hybrid is a *far* cry from sheep/goat hybrid), a humouse would probably look and behave like a normal mouse. The only difference would be that some of its cells would be human cells. So before you get up in arms, think about the people that have had pig heart translants. They are humans that are not partially made of animal cells. But they don't make your heart leap in fear, do they?
I definitely agree that there should be limits on what can and can't be patented (as well as what should and shouldn't be attempted). But I don't think the humouse falls into this category. To make such a creature would take YEARS and YEARS of careful research and testing. Why shouldn't someone that figures out how to do it receive a patent? Remember, we're not talking about patenting a slave-person, here. We're talking about patenting a mouse who might have half of its cells of human origin.
The guy has a great point...that there are problems in the system. But seeing someone that *knows* how these things really work purposefully leading the public astray through incredible exaggeration just gets my goat.
4-star general in a one-man army.
And afterwards the lawyers took over, and issued patent-applications (and getting them approved) for everything under the sun, even if it's not man made.
Witness patents on DNA. No - they won't charge you for running around with one of their genes, but they will charge you, if you get the idea that you want to know, if it's inside your body, because they have patented any process linked to checking for that specific gene; witness the 2,000 odd dollars it costs in royalties to a specific company, if you want to see if you are carrying the breast cancer gene. No, it doesn't matter what process you use - you want to know if it's there, you have to pay.
Some patents are good, some are bad, and some should be taken out side and shot!
I wholehartedly agree with a poster on Slashdot who once said something to the effect of:
Change the standard procedure, and reject all patent applications by default. If the applicant can't make a good enough case as to why the patent should be granted, then the invention isn't worth patenting.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Patents such as #6,293,874 ("User-operated amusement apparatus for kicking the user's buttocks...a user-operated and controlled apparatus for self-infliction of repetitive blows to the user's buttocks by a plurality of elongated arms bearing flexible extensions that rotate under the user's control.") and #6,368,227 ("Method of swinging on a swing," discussed recently in Slashdot) certainly sound as if SOMEONE is trying to prove SOMETHING.
I'm strongly tempted to mail copies of these patents to my congressman with a letter saying, simply, "The patent office is broken. Fix it."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
" Just visited Dispair.com and low and behold the Classic Frowny is free to license, for a limited time. No pushing, no shoving, there are plenty to go a round."
Classic example of submarine patents. Tell everyone it's free to use, get it established as a de facto standard, and then POW. They'll probably try and use some kind of viral marketing, for example getting people to embed them in emails (what happened to the days when emails where plain grammar?).
Don't give in. Stick to Open Source emoticons, even if it does involve a length process of installing and configuring a chinese character set.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Here's an idea. Let's see how the shoe fits on the other foot.
1. Apply for a patent for: "A method for the promotion of the sciences and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
2. Sue the USPTO for infringing your patent.
-Graham