Slashdot Mirror


IP's Next Big Wave - Taste & Smell Patents

Magnavox writes "Futurist Thomas Frey has written an article about Monday's Nobel Prize in medicine opening the door for taste & smell patents. Dr. Richard Axel and Dr. Linda B. Buck won the prize for scientifically describing how odor-sensing proteins in the nose translate specific tastes and smells into information in the brain. Patenting smells in the past was limited to describing the chemical composition of the substance. Receptor patterning opens the door for a variety of new patenting possibilities... Perhaps more important will be the decision as to whether smells can be trademarked as symbols of the products or services they represent. Sounds and colors are commonly trademarked today because of the commercial impression they leave on consumers. Smells cannot be far behind. Now I'm wondering if we can patent the smell of money."

193 comments

  1. Patent office here I come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The patent for the smell of teen spirit is going to make me rich once the 90's become fashionable again!

    1. Re:Patent office here I come by w0lfie · · Score: 0

      this is shocking.

    2. Re:Patent office here I come by mcovey · · Score: 1

      too late! In an exemplary case of patent-office oversight, I've already obtained a patent for the mere ABILITY to smell. The government has been keeping me busy for years, paying me vast sums of your taxes just so I don't sue you. They were going to kill me bug I had a patent on murder that's since expired.

      --
      Amen.
    3. Re:Patent office here I come by Loligo · · Score: 1

      But since Teen Spirit was a deodorant for a while...

      So would this meen the smell of teen spirit is a perfumy roll-on, or the absence of smell?

      Knowing what the typical teen I run into these days smells like, I gotta go with "neither".

      -l

      (grunge folklore says the deodorant was where Kurt got the name of the song, in fact)

    4. Re:Patent office here I come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      the 90s will be fashionable again in *drumroll* 2090!

  2. Quick, buy a car. by Evil+Poot+Cat · · Score: 1

    Seal it up somewhere, for prior art on New Car Smell. ;-)

  3. Maybe I should patent the smell of gunpowder... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...so I can profit when the people revolt against the insane corporate-controlled government!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:Maybe I should patent the smell of gunpowder... by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      "I love the smell of napalm in the morning"

      Obligatory quote from Apocalypse Now

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    2. Re:Maybe I should patent the smell of gunpowder... by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 1

      "I love the smell of carbon monoxide in the morning"

      Obligatory quote from Porklips Now

  4. Stinking patents... by n54 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...will hasten patent reforms ;)

    --
    this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    1. Re:Stinking patents... by PacoTaco · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's this Chinese restaurant down the street from my house that should patent the smell of its dumpster for possible future military applications.

    2. Re:Stinking patents... by msgmonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually this is n't as funny as it sounds since AFAIK the US is developing smell based deterents for use in "crowd control" type applications.

    3. Re:Stinking patents... by FlopEJoe · · Score: 1
  5. A few beefs by lothar97 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm an IP attorney, and I have a few beefs with this article.

    1. In one sentence Frey refers to trademarks of smells, and then in the next sentence wonders if smell patents can be close behind. For the last f'ing time, patents != trademarks.

    Patent: protects an invention (but not an idea itself)
    Trademark: identifies a source of goods or services (usually through a name or logo)

    Patents and trademark are quite different, so please stop confusing them- especially people writing scholarly articles.

    2. There are not "many" color or sound trademarks. There are very few sound trademarks- the NBC chime comes to mind, and Harley Davidson recently lost their attempt to trademark the Harley engine sound. As for colors, you can get your trademark in a specific color (to distinguish it from similar marks, but there are very few color only trademarks. The only one I know of is Orange, which gets the color orange for cell phones. Using colors for trademarks is more of a European thing, as the US only within the last year began accepting color drawings in trademark applications.

    3. I think Frey is going too far. Sure patent attorneys like to stretch the limits of the law for their clients (like all attorneys), but there needs to be something codified in the law to allow patenting of a smell. Currently a smell by itself does not reach the minimum definition of patentable subject matter. To have something that is patentable, you need a physical invention that does something useful, and I don't see how a smell in itself provides this usefulness. I can see smell as part of an invention, such as a fire alarm system or adding smells to movies. Throwing out wild hypotheticals, I guess you could patent a smell that makes the person inhaling it do a specific reaction- but then that raises ethical questions that the patent office might use as a rejection.

    There is something called a design patent, which protects the ornamental features of an invention (like the propeller people put on their trailer hitches). With a design patent, you do not have claim any useful features, you just show drawings. This could logically be extended to smells, but you need to have a change in the laws.

    --

    1. Re:A few beefs by ChuckSchwab · · Score: 1, Interesting

      2. There are not "many" color or sound trademarks. There are very few sound trademarks- the NBC chime comes to mind, and Harley Davidson recently lost their attempt to trademark the Harley engine sound. As for colors, you can get your trademark in a specific color (to distinguish it from similar marks, but there are very few color only trademarks. The only one I know of is Orange, which gets the color orange for cell phones. Using colors for trademarks is more of a European thing, as the US only within the last year began accepting color drawings in trademark applications.

      I think he meant that there are trademarks of logos that involve colors and trademarks of jingles that involve sounds, not that a solitary color or sound itself can be trademarked. (the implication being that there would be trademarks that are partly smell)

    2. Re:A few beefs by lothar97 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think he meant that there are trademarks of logos that involve colors and trademarks of jingles that involve sounds, not that a solitary color or sound itself can be trademarked. (the implication being that there would be trademarks that are partly smell)

      Adding colors to logos and marks expands the amount of marks available. It expands the possible permutations available, and gives you a way to differentiate marks that might be considered similar. You cannot trademark a sound & words- that would be covered by copyright, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

      That said, it's taken 100 years for colors to be brought into the international trademark framework, and very few sounds. I doubt smells will be included in our lifetime.

      --

    3. Re:A few beefs by Bull999999 · · Score: 2

      I think Frey is going too far.

      It's not suprising that he thinks that way considering at in the past, he also stated that;

      Within the next ten years the income tax system in the United States will be dismantled. A number of emerging new forces coupled with the universal dislike of the system will soon gain enough of a toehold to cause it to collapse.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    4. Re:A few beefs by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting
      To have something that is patentable, you need a physical invention that does something useful, and I don't see how a smell in itself provides this usefulness.
      How about perfumes? I am sure Chanel would like to patent their Nr. 5 smell... after all this is the only useful feature you get when you buy an expensive bottle of the stuff. Currently the smell itself is not protected; and you can buy very similar copycat perfumes, the only thing they are not allowed to do is sell it under the name of Chanel.

      Then again, manufacturers should be able to protect designer smells like perfumes. Not sure whether patents are the way to do this... and we don't want any 'one click'-like patents. Else I'd patent the smell of manure as a way to keep unwanted visitors off my land... and then give every farmer the choice of paying me royalties, or invent a manure that does not smell like mine.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    5. Re:A few beefs by arctan1701 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      not that a solitary color or sound itself can be trademarked.

      IIRC, some 3M marketing postit notes claimed that the "Canary Yellow" color was a trademark. this was printed on the back of each note.

    6. Re:A few beefs by lspd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That said, it's taken 100 years for colors to be brought into the international trademark framework, and very few sounds. I doubt smells will be included in our lifetime.

      But the changes are very recent, and there's every indication that "IP Rights" will continue to be rapidly expanded in the near future.

      From Ladas & Parry LLP an IP law firm.

      However, until recently, United States courts were still divided over the issue of single color marks.[8] Finally, on March 28, 1995 the United States Supreme Court resolved unanimously that, "sometimes, a color will meet ordinary legal trademark requirements. And, when it does so, no special rule prevents color alone from serving as a trademark."[9] However, the Court held implicitly that single colors may not be inherently distinctive, but like descriptive marks or words, may only be protected when they have acquired a secondary meaning through use. The Court also found that the green-gold color at issue served no function other than as an identifier and the Court dismissed the "color depletion" problem raised by the plaintiffs.

      ...

      Marks consisting of scents are the most problematic. In addition to the practical difficulties of describing such marks sufficiently to determine where conflicts may exist, there is little legislation or jurisprudence on the subject. A scent mark was first recognized in 1990 in the United States, where a scent, described as a high impact, fresh, floral fragrance reminiscent of plumeria blossoms, applied to sewing thread, was deemed a registrable trademark.

      So it seems that we already have smells incorporated into trademarks in the US. The original assertion that a precise system of describing smell may cause the doors to swing wide open.

    7. Re:A few beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To trademark smells, wouldn't you need a way to quantify them first so you can compare if two are similar (and a way to exactly reproduce an original reference smell that never degrades over time). With colors this is fairly easy, sound is harder but you can compare waveforms. Smell seems way out of reach right now.

    8. Re:A few beefs by Detritus · · Score: 1

      That's why we have trade secrets, which have the advantage of not being time limited.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    9. Re:A few beefs by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Patent: protects an invention (but not an idea itself)

      What does that mean exactly? Why use a term that conveys no meaning like that unless you're deliberately trying to mislead people. Call a spade a spade man.

      Patent: restricts what others can do with an invention (which can be an idea, cause that's all software is and it's patentable)

      Slimey lawyer scum.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    10. Re:A few beefs by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Informative

      trade secrets are only protected as long as you proteect them, if someone were to do a molecular analysis of chanel 5 and determine exactly what makes it smell the way it does they could easily release a new product indistinguishable from chanel 5, and sell it for $5/bottle.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    11. Re:A few beefs by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      "Canary Yellow" may be trademarked, but the color is not, just the name for it.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    12. Re:A few beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As with many products in that price range (i.e. extremely over-priced to the lay persion), it's not always the product that they're paying for but the brand. Chanel could likely sell a mediocre-grade product with a large price-tag, just so people can brag about owning it.

      My favorite example of this is a pair of flip-flops that Gucci sells (or sold at one point) for 120USD. The flip-flop is your standard black rubber sole with cloth thong strap flip-flop. Something that you could by at Wal*Mart (et.al.) for no more than $5. Of course the pair at your local discount store won't say "GUCCI" on them. This Gucci model has no functional or stylistic advantage over the generic version. In fact, it's probably made by the same manufacturer. Nevertheless, the consumer is paying for the brand.

      The people that buy things like these flip-flops and Chanel #5 are the type of people who not only have enough money to do so (or have enough credit, at least), but who also like to prove it to people in their own "subtle" ways.

      As such, even an chemically duplicated Chanel #5 selling for $5/bottle would undoubtedly not affect Chanel's sales.

    13. Re:A few beefs by hazem · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if someone were to do a molecular analysis of chanel 5 and determine exactly what makes it smell the way it does they could easily release a new product indistinguishable from chanel 5, and sell it for $5/bottle

      That's where branding becomes so important. Good companies work hard to build and protect their brands because customers will associate the brand with the product.

      You could sell your knock-off product, but there will still be plenty of people who will pay more for the *real* Chanel. They *know* they are getting a good product that way.

      For some reason, something in the human psyche reacts to branding. It's probably the basis for things like patriotism, racism, jingoism and esprit de corps.

    14. Re:A few beefs by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I bet they would rather trade mark it.

      They could then come after any knock offs no matter what the compound that makes the smell. They could also have the protection perpetually.

      In fact, I bet they would not want to patant it, because then it would become public in a relativly short period of time. Unlike many things, the usefulness of that scent will be a very long time.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    15. Re:A few beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Currently a smell by itself does not reach the minimum definition of patentable subject matter.


      And DNA does?

    16. Re:A few beefs by JonBob · · Score: 1

      But the color blue is a trademark of the Dow Chemical Company.

    17. Re:A few beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could sell your knock-off product, but there will still be plenty of people who will pay more for the *real* Chanel. They *know* they are getting a good product that way.

      That's changing. Been to an electronics store lately? Cheap knock-offs are gaining popularity because most consumers don't give a flying rat's ass about a quality brand name.

    18. Re:A few beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      To have something that is patentable, you need a physical invention that does something useful, and I don't see how a smell in itself provides this usefulness. . . . Throwing out wild hypotheticals, I guess you could patent a smell that makes the person inhaling it do a specific reaction . . .

      First problem with these patents: The valuable smells will be the ones people know and like already. Which are prior art of course, but darned hard to prove because things that smell don't last. I don't suppose that the perfume companies would care to share their archives of smells and the chemicals that cause them with the Patent Office.

      Second problem: how to write patent claims to receptor patterns that would survive the prior art. Claims like these are pretty vulnerable since the existence of such a smell in the past would invalidate them.

      I claim:
      1. A method of activating a smell memory comprising the steps of: stimulating smell receptor 0007, stimulating smell receptor 0117, and stimulating smell receptor 0901.
      2. A composition of matter comprising a compound for stimulating smell receptor 0007, stimulating smell receptor 0117, and stimulating smell receptor 0901.
      YIIALBIYNYL. GYOGDL - YMNO.
    19. Re:A few beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hasn't anybody ever heard of the "He who smelt it dealt it" defense?

    20. Re:A few beefs by lscotte · · Score: 1

      There are not "many" color or sound trademarks.

      An interesting/sad story about color trademarks from a forum I frequent where a fellow wanted to sell an electrical drill that happened to be yellow on ebay. A company (Vero) hired by DeWalt to "protect" their trademarks got ebay to shut down the auction, claiming that they guy was trying to pass off a non DeWalt tool as a counterfeit, intentionally using a look-alike to sell it.

      This is just plain wrong! Nowhere on the ebay ad did it say it was a DeWalt nor was any attempt made to pass it off as one. Vero/Ebay cancelled the auction for no other reason than the drill happened to be yellow.

      Is this a sign of things to come? This sort of thing seems to be happening more and more.

      Want to read the tale? Here's a link: http://tinyurl.com/633c4/

      --
      This post is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
    21. Re:A few beefs by atrizzah · · Score: 1

      And I think the brand is all they should get. It's clear that branding works sufficiently well to base a business on because of the fact that companies like Designer Imposters haven't put the big designers fragrance divisions out of business. So why should they get more protection at all? All this protectionism is getting ridiculous.

    22. Re:A few beefs by Aidtopia · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Using colors for trademarks is more of a European thing, as the US only within the last year began accepting color drawings in trademark applications.

      The side of the US Postal service trucks in my area claim (in small print) that the eagle logo and the color scheme are trademarks of the US Postal Service.

      To have something that is patentable, you need a physical invention that does something useful, and I don't see how a smell in itself provides this usefulness.

      Doesn't the gas companies add something to give normally oderless natural gas that distinctive smell? That's useful, because it helps to inform of leaks.

    23. Re:A few beefs by kryzx · · Score: 1

      I call bullshi... uh, I mean, prior art.

      --
      "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
    24. Re:A few beefs by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's changing. Been to an electronics store lately? Cheap knock-offs are gaining popularity because most consumers don't give a flying rat's ass about a quality brand name.

      I think this is a case of different crowds. The people that buy overpriced perfumes are people with more money than brains; you can see them at your local upscale mall driving Hummer H2s and other overpriced showy vehicles. For their electronics, these people either buy stuff like Bang & Olufssen, Bose, (or for the poorer ones) Sony.

      The people buying cheap knock-offs are a different crowd, one that usually drives broken down old cars and shops at Wal-Mart a lot, unlike the prior crowd.

    25. Re:A few beefs by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      no, using blue on housing insulation is covered by the trademark.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    26. Re:A few beefs by Katharine · · Score: 1

      As for colors, you can get your trademark in a specific color (to distinguish it from similar marks, but there are very few color only trademarks. The only one I know of is Orange, which gets the color orange for cell phones.

      Just to add to the list: Pink is a mark of Owens-Corning insulation and greenish-gold is a mark of Qualitex dry-cleaning pads.

    27. Re:A few beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course people react to branding....Not all brands are high quality, but most are at least consistant quality- and they stand behind thier products. Knock offs are usually of lower and more inconsistant quality.

      You want good film? Grab some Kodak or Fuji...maybe brand X is good too, but really your just taking a chance when you buy it.

      Just somthing to consider, don't stop buying the generics just be aware of the chance you take in doing so.

    28. Re:A few beefs by Audacious · · Score: 1

      Ok, IANAL - however....

      Please correct me if I am wrong but:

      Copyrights: Are for physical objects only such as sheet music, books, and even mechanical objects. In other words -the embodiment of an idea.

      Patents: Are for ideas and/or the concept of those ideas. Thus, you can patent a method for doing something (like KFC's receipes) but you don't have to have the chicken sitting there already cooked. Patents are also given out for formulaes as well as concepts if the formulae is specific enough and has enough to back that concept.

      Trademarks: Are the equivalent of logos. They are used to distinguish one <whatever> from another <whatever>. Barbie is the trademark for a doll.

      This is why I say that saying Patents only cover physical objects is, I believe, incorrect.

      --
      Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke. :-)
    29. Re:A few beefs by mmsterne · · Score: 1

      I also have a few issues with this article. There is a fundamental distinction between an invention and a discovery. An invention is an original creation whereas a discovery is an uncovering of something occurring in nature. Per patent law and the constitution, patents only extend to inventions. A monopoly on naturally occurring phenomemon is not logically related to the advancement of the useful arts. Remember how long it took computer software to get to patentability? The PTO believed that computer programs were nothing but strings of naturally occurring algorithms. Simply because researchers have discovered a means of defining how our bodies recognize and recall smells, it does not follow that the smell of a bakers bread would be patentable. If many bakers use the same ingredients in their bread, the smell will be similar. Not to mention in use in commerce for ever! (Perhaps a special chemical compound in the bread producing a distinctive smell? Gross.) I think many people would take issue with the proposition that without a pre-existing patent there is no prior art to bar patentability. Useful articles in the public domain, even those never under patent, qualify as prior art. Imagine the difficulties with blocking patents. Is the nose of this wine a slight improvement on the last? Would we exempt smells from the doctrine of equivalents? Perhaps we would have to import some trademark law? Ie party one has the patent on the smell of fresh bread in an aerosol spray can but party two can have a patent on the same smell in a dish towel? Perhaps now I'm rambling on a parade of horribles similar to Mr. Freys article. Finally, I believe psychologists and marketers alredy attempt to use smells to trigger both childhood memories and the "buy" command?

    30. Re:A few beefs by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      I'm a candlemaker and the thought of patents on smells worries me. A lot of the fragrances I use are essentially copies of designer fragrances. I can't use the name because it's trademarked, but I can call it something similar or just say it's a "type". If the very smell itself is patented, we're pretty much out of business. If Yankee Candle patented, say, the smell of vanilla, then nobody could make a vanila-scented candle.

      Already the large candle companies are trademarking names for their fragrances right and left. Some are so generic that one wonders if the trademark is legal, e.g. Lemonade, Chocolate Brownie, Honeysuckle, and Frosted Cookie.

    31. Re:A few beefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and what about the red and blue colors on the Petty race cars?

  6. Sick of this crap by mboverload · · Score: 1, Funny

    Next thing you know they will be patenting plants...

    Oh....wait...

  7. In other news.. by euxneks · · Score: 4, Funny

    McDonald's patents the smell of grease! (+1 Insightful)

    Microsoft patents the smell of money! (+1 Funny)

    Your local movie theatre patents the smell of urine! (+1 Informative)

    SCO patents the smell of shit! (-1 redundant)

    Bah... I won't quit my day job.. Wait! I don't have one!

    --
    in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    1. Re:In other news.. by euxneks · · Score: 1

      Just read http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=124694&cid =10457218 ... Now I know why I'm unemployed. DUHR.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    2. Re:In other news.. by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Now what if you can smell that blue screen of death before it hits you. Hmmm....

    3. Re:In other news.. by G-funk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, what smells like blue?

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    4. Re:In other news.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overrated with nothing? The fuck!?

  8. Re:next time i releave gas.... by BottleCup · · Score: 1, Funny

    Its weird how, in reaction to this article, everyone wants to patent stuff that goes out their own rear end.

  9. Prior Art by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Informative
    Wouldn't everything that can be thought of already be covered under prior art?

    God, nature, what have you, will already have all the prior art claims he/she/it wants.

    From TFA:

    Enter the October 4, 2004 announcement that two Americans were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for discovering how people can recognize and remember an estimated 10,000 smells, ranging from smelly garbage to expensive perfume.

    The two researchers, Dr. Richard Axel and Linda B. Buck, won the prize for scientifically describing how odor-sensing proteins in the nose translate specific tastes and smells into information in the brain.

    Their breakthrough stemmed from a 1991 discovery of a family of genes devoted to producing different odor-sensing proteins, called receptors, in the nose. Their work showed that people have a few hundred types of odor receptors, each of which can detect only a limited number of odors.

    When a person sniffs cologne or fresh chocolate chip cookies, for example, a mix of different types of molecules flows over the receptors in the back of the nose. That activates an array of the receptors, but only those primed to respond to those particular molecules. The brain notes which receptors are activated, and interprets this pattern as the smell.


    Besides... how can you patent my nose and its functions?
    1. Re:Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if it appears in the lyrics of a song, is that evidence of prior art?

      Specifically thinking about Marcy Playground's "I smell sex and candy"

  10. Here here by aarku · · Score: 1, Funny

    I, for one, will be searching the stars tonight using my smelloscope to find new odors to patent.

  11. Patents...bah, worry about Trademarks. by example42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The patenting of smells doesn't worry me so much since patents expire quickly (14 years IIRC). Trademarks on the other hand are perpetual and pose another intellectual property land mine. I'm sure we are all familiar with the International Olympic Committee being totally evil in "protecting" their trademarks. It would be most unfortunate to have Starbucks swing a huge legal hammer at small coffee vendors whose coffee smells similar.

  12. Will be interesting to digitize smell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Imagine receiving a smell bomb in your email, or a printer that print a type of scent.

    Will be good to smell homecook food 1000 miles away, over the internet.

    1. Re:Will be interesting to digitize smell. by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ahh, the smell of goatse in the morning.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  13. It's an interesting idea by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The most objectionable software patents are so dumb because they seem to fail the "obviousness" test. To be patented, a thing (it used to be a device) had to be useful, novel, and non-obvious. Online shopping carts and one-click shopping strike everybody here as obvious; the ones with the patent aren't the first ones with the idea but merely the first ones with the money to put together a patent.

    But not everybody can create a new smell. Well, given the hygiene and dietary standards famous to Slashdotters I'm sure that new smells are created all the time, but I assure you nobody wants those smells. To create a new perfume requires a highly expert skill set. The same applies to food; blending the right chocolate, wine, or coffee is a job for an expert.

    I assume that means coming up with a reproduceable smell. I can't imagine you could walk in with something you threw together and say, "I patent this! Nobody else can have it!" without at least being able to describe what it is and how you got it.

    I don't know how they're going to judge "distance". In copyrights I imagine that they have some sort of measurement for when a new work is derivative of an old one. I can't pick up a copy of John Grisham's The Jury and change a few letters and copyright it. Similarly I hope nobody would be able to walk in with "This is just like Chanel No. 5 except I added some vanilla extract".

    Actually, that would smell kind of nice. But there are getting to be some potentially stupid gray areas, where things are similar, but it's hard to quantify how similar because smells and tastes are a lot harder to examine than inventions and books.

    1. Re:It's an interesting idea by Jerf · · Score: 1

      In copyrights I imagine that they have some sort of measurement for when a new work is derivative of an old one.

      No. They use sourcing, and sourcing alone. A derivative work is literally what that word means, a work derived from another.

      If you produce a work that happens to be similar to another, but can prove you've never even seen it (removing the possibility of deriving anything), then you will also have a copyright. There is a famous, and old, case of two musicians coming up with the same tune, and the court finally found they both have a copyright on it.

      The reason distance is a factor is a practical one, not a legal one. Copyrights are civil issues, not criminal, so you don't have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. If you wrote a book that was just like a Grisham novel except for a few words, even if you really did just write the book that way without ever seeing Grisham's, you're going to have a hard time convincing a court that you didn't just copy Grisham's book, as by far the more likely case is that you did. Proving you did not see something is quite tough.

      Distance is a sufficient, but not necessary, proof that you did not derive, so generally speaking it is worth trying to stay away from the work of others; fortunately for very large works like novels or programs that is very easy. For jingles, it can be very hard.

      It is interesting to consider how this applies to smells. I won't try to lay it out, since I don't think there is one true answer under the current system. (I'm not a pure cynic but it is difficult to deny the trend of "protect the ones with money" and sometimes that means the decision changes based on which big company brings the first suit.)

  14. Prior art by KitFox · · Score: 1
    Hopefully, prior art will begin to be more important. But honestly, I can't see the wonderful folks at the USPTO trying to figure out whether a certain smell is "McDonald's French Fries" or "Wendy's French Fries". This worries me on so many levels, as it just sems to open up the door for more rediculous litigation.

    And of course, the patents will go through regardless of prior art, because, honestly, how are those patent stampers supposed to know that the patent description in technical terms just happens to cover every sweet smell there is?

    . o O {OMG... How long until people get sued for patent infringement for farting?}... Is it insightful or funny? Or neither? Dunno. It's too late at night to tell.

    --

    @Whee

  15. Oh, just great... by Tokerat · · Score: 1, Funny


    ...I guess that means while I won't spend much at the Taco Bell drive-thru, I'll get nailed on the royalty payments about 2-3 hours later!

    *rimshot*

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  16. *nauseated* by johansalk · · Score: 1

    All this talk of IP frenzy makes me feel queazy!

  17. Smell trademark already in EU by alannon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Smell Trademark I remember reading about this a year or two ago.

    1. Re:Smell trademark already in EU by lothar97 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      European law and US law obviously are different. According to the article you cited, there's an interesting tidbit. To register a trademark in the EU, you need a graphical representation. You have to show the mark, and describe it if need be (such as the case for the color orange for cell phones, you just describe the color). I'm not sure how you graphically represent a smell. TFA mentions describing "rose scent for tyres [UK]," but rejects Chanel No. 5, since although they did describe the general smell and its ingredients, you could not get a full idea of the smell.

      --

    2. Re:Smell trademark already in EU by geeklawyer · · Score: 2, Informative
      (I'm also an IP lawyer)
      There aren't many smell TM's in Europe either but the CTM legislation specifically provides for smells.
      OHIM treats a verbal description of a smell as an adequate graphical representation for the purposes of trademark registration so long as it is decriptive and unambiguous. If it were litigated on litigants would wheel out all those perfumiers as expert witnesses who, like wine snobs, would presumably talk about "nosey acidic wood" or somesuch.

      Smell registrations are registrable in the US also however: I think there was a case called "Clark" (sorry I havent got the citation) which talked of the smell of a bloom.
      Chromatograhic report are thought not to be adequate as they dont unambiguously or immediately describe it.

      --
      -he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
      journal
  18. Re:next time i releave gas.... by slarshdot · · Score: 1

    My cats breath smells like cat food!

    --

    I'm not out of order! You're out of order! The whole freaking system's out of order!
  19. Coffee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    One of my friends that works for a large multinational food company told me that the nice "fresh coffee" smell you get when you open up a brand new jar of instant coffee is actually sprayed on at the last stage of the production process.

    Seems like that particular signature would be a likely candiate for a trademark.

  20. Don't even think about it. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    There are thousands of years of prior art for the taste of saliva and the smell of all bodily functions.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Don't even think about it. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Prior art will not stop them. Hell, expecting the USPTO to honor prior art is about as likely as a politician honoring his campaign promises. ;->

  21. Taste Patent by tomsuchy · · Score: 1, Funny

    Tastes like chicken, patent pending...

    --
    this isn't a sig. i type this (including the two dashes), every time i post, just to make it look like a sig.
  22. Re:Ridiculous by jfengel · · Score: 1

    I'd imagine that "hot cookies" constitute prior art. I can't imagine that any variant on the recipe is going to be considered sufficiently novel unless you wanted to start putting, I dunno, motor oil or anchovies in it. I'm perfectly content to permit you the patent on the smell of chocolate cookies with anchovies.

    I think I'll go make some prior art right now.

  23. Do we have a big enough variety of smells? by r6144 · · Score: 1
    Copyright and trademark works with relatively little objection, because there are very many ways to write a novel, compose a piece of music, and (to a lesser extent) design a trademark, so even if one of the ways is monopolized by copyright/trademark, the scope for innovation does not decrease significantly.

    And the problem many have with most software patents (and many in other fields too) is that they cover one of very few good ways of doing something, or the idea of doing some obvious thing itself, so others have no way around it no matter how good they are. Some people might find it fair, but many do not, and find it counterproductive.

    For patents/trademarks on smells and tastes, the same thing applies --- I won't object much if and only if the smell/taste must be extremely special (but do we have such a good nose/tongue?), in other words, it must contain a large amount of information.

  24. Money... by ms1234 · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...doesn't smell, it talks. It may even sing and dance if you let it.

  25. please patent farts by weighn · · Score: 3, Funny

    so my colleagues can be issued with a cease and desist

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  26. ridiculous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, it's one thing to give someone credit for their hard work, but the patent system is becoming ridiculous. Patenting smell? WTF, d*mn, people what are wrong with you, am I the only person that thinks this whole patent system is bordering on madness.

  27. brings a whole new meaning to by planetjeffy · · Score: 1

    pull my finger

  28. My own patent plan by rscrawford · · Score: 1

    I'm planning on patenting a method of using moist surface membranes in an interior environment to transfer oxygen from a gaseous environment to a liquid medium which can transport the oxygen to widespread locations throughout a biological organisms. The trick is that waste gases will also be transferred in the same mechanism, so that the same mechanism can be used to bring in oxygen yet also expel waste products such as carbon dioxide.

    All I need now is a name. Suggestions?

    --
    -- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
    1. Re:My own patent plan by n54 · · Score: 1

      LungsTM

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
  29. store and read certain smells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A digicam could do this pretty easily... once a smell is patented it could be assigned a smell id or something... detected and stored by the cam when you roll... then another device would output that smell... kinda like a speaker i guess

  30. Some patents to do with smell by vinukr · · Score: 1

    Here are some patents that have something to do with smell... But none are awarded to a smell itself. They are mostly devices that emit some smell.

    1. Re:Some patents to do with smell by archeopterix · · Score: 1
      Here are some patents that have something to do with smell... But none are awarded to a smell itself. They are mostly devices that emit some smell.
      You mean they can sue me for wearing socks?
  31. IP, the only thing left for the US by nolife · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Considering the US only produces a small fraction of the physical goods that it used to, the only thing businesses and our economy can compete with for actual generation of money in the global economy is IP (copyright, tradmark, patents etc). I see it as a big gamble or some type of last ditch attempt to give the US some type of advantage over the rest of the world as the manufactoring of real products is all but gone and not coming back. Can the US actually create and secure more IP then the rest of the world and sustain itself from the money that might flow in with it? I see the IP laws following this trend and I assume it will get much worse in the power grab. As I see it, IP can only support a much smaller crowd or group of people then real property does as you do not a large support structure to create it and maintain it.

    --
    Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
  32. Will be used in unforseen ways by zaxios · · Score: 1

    Like my wife patenting the smell of my body odour and then suing me into the shower.

  33. Farts by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    I'm investing everything in whichever the hell company it is that makes those whoopy cushions.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  34. Patents are getting ridiculous by antivoid · · Score: 0

    Really, patents are getting old. Everyone is patenting things! I feel that stopping other people from improving upon things by patenting them stifles research and drastically slows any improvement or technological forwarding of humanity in general. There should be a GPL-like patent - i.e. almost like an anti-patent. Just to screw those people who want to patent something, the GPL-patent should "patent" things under the name of the entire human population. How's that? :)

    1. Re:Patents are getting ridiculous by mirko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It should be taken as an opportunity to just consider if it's better to let corporations patent smell or not to : I mean that if it doesn't prevent them from making money on smells, then why should they patent these ?
      Because they're about to make smells 100% reproductible ?
      In the latter case, though I do not agree with the whole patenting system, I might agree that some would like their "smell" to be protected from this 100% perfect-clonability... even though I guess there's a chemical involved from which the smell originates and which could be patented without changing a word in the patent office charter.

      --
      Trolling using another account since 2005.
    2. Re:Patents are getting ridiculous by CrackerJack9 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you improve upon something that is already patented, you can apply for a new patent...its called patent law.

    3. Re:Patents are getting ridiculous by The_Laughing_God · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, you can patent improvements, but if I understand your intent correctly, you are missing the point. You can *only* patent the improvement, so you'd still have to license the underlying patent. One good example was the now-famous example of Robert Kearns, who invented the delay windshield wiper (and then fought for over 25 years to get the automaker who stole it to pay up). The automakers didn't continue to use his 4 part (one moving part) 1962 design for decades without ever once improving it; they did improve it -and patented the improvements, but were still in violation, because they hadn't licensed the underlying patent.

      In simple terms: Say I invent a fizzbin, and you improve it to make a faster fizzbin, a dual stage fizzbin, etc. I can't market a fizzbin with your improvements without licensing them -- but you can't market any fizzbins at all without a license from me. All your improvement patent entitles you to is the right to collect license fees on (or block, should you so desire) the use of your improvement.

      That's US law. In other countries, like Japan, the practice is completely different (I don't know the actual law, but I do know many examples of how it is customarily applied) It is quite common for a large competitor to force a patent-holder into a "mutual licensing deal" by creating so many derivative patents that the original holder can't use or license their patent at all. (Their standard for patenting is looser, so if you invent a fizzbin lightbulb, and Mitsubishi wants to use it, they can patent "improvements" like colored fizzbin lightbulbs (including colored lenses and covers), "fizzbin lightbulbs for use at night" and separately "for use in day", "in displays", etc. -- pretty much any use a lightbulb already has, the idea of doing it with a fizzbin lightbulb is considered an improvement on both the use patent and the fizzbin lightbulb patent. Now *you* can't use your patent for any of those useful purposes, unless you cut a deal with them. They can afford to blitz the field with hundreds of patents, and to put a dozen salarymen on the task of listing common uses for existing lightbulbs; you can't.)

    4. Re:Patents are getting ridiculous by CrackerJack9 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What you are saying is true, and I realize my original post was not as in-depth as it should have been. The way I understand it is a smell is the interpretation of a certain chemical that comes in contact with your odor receptors in the nasal cavity. Change or improve this chemical slightly and it will be interpreted differently, hence becoming a new smell--with a new patent. I understand if you improve a fizzbin, there's still a fizzbin underneath; but a smell triggering compound is based on elements that cannot be patented, and I'm not sure how fine the line is when changing a substance (adding an OH group where there was sulfur or the like--new chemical structure, but the large chunk of the molecule would be the same), since the resultant chemical induces a different smell I would have to assume that it would be a new chemical compound and require its own patent. If I were to patent Fexofenadine hydrochloride, or dimethyl benzeneacetic acid hydrochloride, and you found a way to take the HCl group off and add something else, it would be a different drug and may react completely differently (or have a different smell). In that example, I do not believe you would need my permission, as I would be holding a patent for a chemical (or the process by which I make the chemical) with a HCl group that subsequently 'cures' allergies.

  35. Re:off topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey biff,

    It's intellectual property _mine field_.

    Now I'll make like a tree and go...

  36. You can't patent colors or soundwaves. by Lightning+Hopkins · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a really bad idea. Simply because a taste or smell can be clearly defined doesn't make it patentable. You can't patent colors or sounds, which can both be clearly defined, so why should you be able to patent smells or tastes? Eventually, this may lead to the patenting of feelings or sensations, or, stretching it a bit, emotions or thoughts. Ridiculous. Just because something is quantifiable doesn't make it patentable. (ps: I also think gene patenting is a bad idea, but that's a whole other can of worms.)

    --
    Eh?
    1. Re:You can't patent colors or soundwaves. by Lightning+Hopkins · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...And nor can you trademark colors or soundwaves. You can trademark specific patterns of colors or soundwaves that are distinguishable as distinct and recognizable symbols, but smell and taste are both far too vague to have similar applications. Taste and smell are too rudimentary a pair of senses to function as specific symbols (to an unaided human not using this newly-discovered technique), and thus should not be considered viable as trademarks or copyrights, or any sort of intellectual property.

      --
      Eh?
  37. Oh, I don't know by IBitOBear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How can you patent "put it on my tab" (one click shopping) or the division of labor (anything "client server")?

    How can you patent parts of the human genome?

    Simple, someone with money makse a "persuasive green folding argument" that they should be allowed to...

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:Oh, I don't know by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Ok, on your tab and the division of labor is a heck of a lot different from what my nose & brain has been doing for millions of years.

      Ok, prior art: Australopithecus africanus, Homo ergaster, Homo habilis!

  38. Phewww!!!! by ImTwoSlick · · Score: 1
    For a second there, I thought it said:

    IP's Next Big Wave - Taste & Smell P.... eehh... nevermind.

  39. I've got dibs on the patent by ImTwoSlick · · Score: 0, Redundant

    for the smell of Natalie Portman covered in hot grits.

  40. A message to these companies by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

    who base their whole business model on patent, search and sue.

    How about patenting the phrase F*CK YOU.

    Maybe I should patent a rotten egg smell. Then every time someone farts, they will owe me $50 or I'll sue their ass, litterally.

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
  41. I declare your patent invalid... by Skevin · · Score: 2, Funny

    because I claim Prior Fart.

    Solomon

    --
    "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
    1. Re:I declare your patent invalid... by Tokerat · · Score: 0, Offtopic


      Oh damn, I got served like a Chalupa! (TM) that shit, son!

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  42. And in other news... by jd · · Score: 1, Funny

    SCO announced today that it now holds the patent for the sweet smell of success. When asked if this meant they were going to bring a new product to market, using this, a spokesman was quoted as saying "Hell no - we just want to sue the pants off anybody who might be infringing on it."

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  43. Lookuout here comes SIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And very soon we will have SIAA (Smell Industry Artists Association) and very soon this organization will be suing scores of people for unauthorized illegal sharing of fart smell that the SIAA has patented and copy-protected..... It will be illegal to fart...

    and SIAA will granty the RIAA honorary license to freely use fart and other shitty smells

  44. Great... by EvilCabbage · · Score: 1

    ... here come the "tastes like chicken" jokes..

  45. Re:Ridiculous by hazem · · Score: 0

    I can't imagine that any variant on the recipe is going to be considered sufficiently novel unless you wanted to start putting, I dunno, motor oil or anchovies in it.

    I don't know... I think my ex-girlfriend has you on that one. I don't know if she actually used motor oil and anchovies in her cooking, but it sure as hell tasted like she did!

  46. An essay on IP's by scruffymcgee · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    An essay on IP's

    The subject of IP's is a controversial issue. Underestimate IP's at your peril. Cited by many as the single most important influence on post modern micro eco compartmentalism, its influence on western cinema has not been given proper recognition. Often it is seen as both a help and a hinderence to global commercial enterprises, who are yet to grow accustomed to its disombobulating nature. At the heart of the subject are a number of key factors. I plan to examine each of these factors in detail and and asses their importance.

    Social Factors

    There is cultural and institutional interdependence between members of any community. When Sir Bernard Chivilary said 'hounds will feast on society' [1] he, contrary to my learned colleague Sir George Allen's recent publication 'Into the eye of , could not have been referring to eighteenth century beliefs regarding society. Difference among people, race, culture and society is essential on the survival of our world, however IP's demonstrates a coherent approach, something so lacking in our culture, that it is not recognised by all.

    When one is faced with people of today a central theme emerges - IP's is either adored or despised, it leaves no one undecided. Clearly it promotes higher individualism and obeyence of instinct. As soon as a child meets IP's they are changed.

    Economic Factors

    The dictionary defines economics as 'the social science concerned with the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services'. Of course, IP's fits perfectly into the Custard-Not-Mustard model of economics. Interest

    IP's

    When displayed this way it becomes very clear that IP's is of great importance. Of course interest has always depended upon IP's to a certain extent, but now more that ever. In the light of this free trade must be examined.

    Political Factors

    Politics - smolitics! Comparing IP's and much of what has been written of it can be like comparing IP'sism and post-IP'sism.

    To quote jazz singer Francis T. Time 'The success of any political system can only truly be assessed once the fat lady has sung.' [2] Considered by many to be one of the 'Founding Fathers' of IP's, his words cannot be over-looked. It is a well known 'secret' that what prompted many politicians to first strive for power was IP's.

    I wait anxiously. What will the next few years bring for IP's?

    Conclusion

    How much responsibility lies with IP's? We can say that IP's has a special place in the heart of mankind. It inspires, brought up a generation and most importantly it perseveres.

    I shall give the final word to star Macaulay Schwarzenegger: 'I wouldn't be where I am today without IP's.' [3]

    [1] Sir Bernard Chivilary - Interestingly... - 1904 Badger Books

    [2] Time - Yes Indeed - 1987 Indegro Books

    [3] My IP's! - Issue 4 - BFG Publishing

    --

    I'm Scruffy.

  47. Forget patenting smells, patent smelling by gbulmash · · Score: 2, Funny

    The real bit is when someone takes that Nobel-winning work and patents the act of smelling things. Every unlicensed nasal inhalation, also known as a "sniff" will be a violation of their patent.

    Mouth breathers will be exempt.

    - Greg

  48. Nothing surprises me... by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now that people have patented genes. Someone maght as well patent urine, and have us pay royalities everytime we make it.

  49. Here's one by Klowner · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll call it "Hobo Stink" and slap all those guys on street corners with IP infringement lawsuits, then I'll yank the bucket of change out of their hands and split, it'll rule. And I'll invest in cardboard signs before I start doing that too, oh and, money buckets.

  50. What this really means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now the Professor can invent the smelloscope.

  51. The BS economy by Saeger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Does it seem to anybody else that fewer and fewer people are actually doing actual useful work these days (yay productivity-gain hoarding! not), and thus if you're not unemployed you're increasingly likely to be producing new kinds of bullshit for newly created bullshit markets?

    Instead of trying to create yet another kind of BS "intellectual property" in the form of taste & smell patents, we should be reevaluating our fucked up socio-economics. Everybody wants to feel useful and justify their existence I guess... whether you're a bogus patent peddler, a dead-weight manager, a yoga instructor, or a herbal supplement phony.

    --

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
    1. Re:The BS economy by Jerf · · Score: 1

      The progress of the human race has long been dominated by the top X%, where "X" is some rather small number. Much of the rest, in progress terms, have mostly just come along for the ride.

      (Which doesn't mean they are necessarily useless; anybody who, like me, doesn't want to be a garbage man, sewer man, or janitor should have great respect for those who are. I mean that, literally. But there is a definite distinction between those who are doing real work for the team, and those slacking off. It's hard to tell if more people are slacking off ("dead-weight manager", I like that phrase!), or if they are just getting louder and better funded.)

  52. Dogs can tell the difference by Doomsdaisy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since dogs have a sense of smell that is somewhere between 10k and 100k times better than our own, could you define your smell as significantly different than a pattented or trademarked smell based upon a dog's ability to tell the difference? I mean, couldn't you train a dog to recognize the difference between what us humans would regard as identical smells?

    This raises the question - do our own limited senses define what is and isn't patent infringement, or is the truth more concrete?
    .

    --
    These are breasts; this is source code.
    Why do you have a problem with those two things belonging to one person?
  53. IP insanity at it's best by Pecisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not a economy specialist or the lawyer, but such things which shows tad all IP is going to the extremes - coorporations want to be everything owned by someone. I personally thing they won't succeed - but it will be along fight before some sanity shows up in this situation. Before that, I give myself a half a laugh, half a shiver about all that. It is scary as it is funny to see how they try to run for money - oh, yes, it is needed for living, but not so much. Oh, ok, whatever...tired from all this.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  54. Trademarks.... by ImaLamer · · Score: 3, Informative
    Trademarks on the other hand are perpetual

    Wrong...

    What is a trademark?

    A trademark is an identification of goods or services which may be a word, phrase, acronym, logo, or other symbol. Manufacturers use trademarks to distinguish their products from others. A trademark does not give exclusive rights over the product to its owner; it merely prevents others from using the mark in commerce.

    In the U.S., a trademark can be registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for 10 years and 3 months, and can be renewed every ten years.


    Trademarks do expire and sometimes companies forget to reapply which causes plenty of trouble all around or they steal peoples work. It is far from perpetual.
    1. Re:Trademarks.... by ajakk · · Score: 1

      There is not a limitation to the number of times that you renew a trademark (as long as it is still in use). Thus, they absolutely can be perpetual (unlike patents and copyrights).

    2. Re:Trademarks.... by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can renew them over and over but once it expires it is open to everyone.

      If you don't renew Coke, for example, then I can hurry up and snatch it up. Like domain registration. It expires so keep an eye on it.

  55. Re:A few beefs (corrected) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    For someone who holds themself out to be an IP attorney, I'm frightened at how little he understands of intellectual property.

    First, while a patent does not technically protect the idea itself, it does prevent others from applying the ideas in the patent and using the applied ideas to make money. The line is a fuzzy, at best.

    Next, color by itself can NEVER serve as a trademark. The "Qualitex" case is as close as any court in the US has ever come to saying that color, without more, can serve as a trade identifier.

    Color only serves to distinguish source, origin, or sponsorship in combonation with other trade dress features - such as container configuration. For example, UPS cannot, and will never be able to, trademark the color brown despite their significant investment in the commercials "What can BROWN do for you?" What they can, and do, trademark, is the color brown in combonation with the distinguishably boxy shape of their trucks. Big difference.

    The "Owens Corning" (think pink fiberglass and the Pink Panther) case is often cited for the proposition that color alone can serve as a trade identifier. While it is true the court said OC could have exclusive rights to the color pink in their fiberglass, it never said OC had the exclusive right to the color pink.

    Similarly, Cutty Sark whiskey attempted to trademark a gold color by exhaustively advertising in magazines and on billboards the color of their whiskey. Nowhere was the name Cutty Sark used, just the color. They gave up, and its unlikely that despite any investment of time and money, that secondary meaning would develop in the color alone.

    The only cases where color is protected by the courts are in cases dealing with pills. While these courts do stand up to protect color, in combonation with pill shape, they do so in contrast to other cases rejecting exclusive rights in colors. But the strong public policy in having readily identifiable and distinguishable medications overrides the traditional proscriptions in the Lanham Act against trademarks of pure color alone.

    Finally, it is unlikely design patents can be extended to smells. Design patents protect new, nonobvious ornamental designs applied to useful things. Application requires a drawing of the design, and protection is narrowly limited to that design. Therefore, this patent set provides protection for visual elements of things. Even if a change in the law were permitted - how does one draw a scent? Submit a sample of a scent? How does one check to see if a scent infringes? Everything, theoretically has a smell, should every item manufacturered have a scent patent? And to what useful article is the design element applied? The purposes underlying the institution of design patents simply do not hold for scents.

    In fact, scents do not even qualify for the lower threshold of trade identity protection. Every aroma case tried in court has failed on its merits. Aroma is simply descriptive of a product's ingredients, and absent secondary meaning (no example of which has yet been demonstrated); accordingly, no rights can vest in a scent.

    Scents and aromas are more appropriately relegated to trade secret protection, which is the only IP protection capable enough to protect a product's unique combonation of ingredients that generate a certain scent.

  56. A colour trademark everyone will know by MachDelta · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There are not "many" color or sound trademarks.
    ...but there are very few color only trademarks. The only one I know of is Orange, which gets the color orange for cell phones.
    I know of a colour trademark that EVERYONE will recognize: UPS brown. Yup, it's a trademark. The colour is actually called "Pullman Brown", named after the classy Pullman railroad cars way back in the day. It's been a trademark of UPS for such a long time, most people don't even conciously realize the association between the colour and the company. But its there, and thats why it's a trademark.

    As for WHY they picked the colour... two reasons. One, they thought it looked "professional" and classy (like the railcars) while still being unique. This was in contrast to the very first UPS vehicles which were all painted different and often bright colours (red, yellow, etc).
    Two, brown hides dirt very well, giving the impression of always being clean. Infact, the company itself borders on the obsessive with presenting a 'clean image'. UPS trucks are washed daily (!) so they always look nice. Any time a truck is damaged, the very first thing they do with it is hide the truck. Seriously, its company policy that obviously damaged/scratched vehicles are not allowed to sit in sight of the public. The company also has VERY strict rules on the apperance of its employees too (the ones the public sees anyways).

    Anyways... yeah, just wanted to share that little nugget of information. People don't realize just how much time, money, and effort some companies (like UPS) put into image. The objective being, of course, that people DON'T realize the amount of work it takes... and instead simply create a network of positive associations - like colours and apperances - with the company entity.

    It really is amazing what you don't know you know. :)
    1. Re:A colour trademark everyone will know by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
      It's too bad UPS can't patent wrecking every last package I've ever sent through them, and trademark how crumpled and wet the box looks when I get it.

      They'd make millions!

      IIRC, 'Wheaties Orange" is a trademarked color - it's assigned its own Pantone number. (It's been awhile since I looked...or ate Wheaties)

  57. Anyone want to buy the patent for my ballsack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll sell the patent for my ballsack for $15,000 if anyone is interested. It's a pretty good ballsack, it's done it's job quite well for approximately the last 30 years.

  58. Quick! by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

    Someone patent "silent but deadly" before Microsoft does!

  59. I'm patenting the smell of fear... by muffen · · Score: 0

    Ph34r Me!

  60. I can see this working for Subway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, what other place smells like a Subway? (the restaurant, I mean. Actual subways, if they have a smell, most likely do not have a _marketable_ smell)

  61. please, osama... by flacco · · Score: 1

    ...bomb us back into the stone-age. "civilization" has gone too far.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  62. Smell Patents by floydman · · Score: 1

    kid: "Mooom, can I smell now, pleaaasseee"
    Mom: "No honey we havent paid yet, hold on your breath for 5 more minuts"

    --
    The lunatic is in my head
  63. smell trademarks in Europe by beric · · Score: 1

    You can find here the list of european trademarks. Put "Trademark type" to "Olfactory".

  64. Patent the smell of cigarette smoke... by mikael · · Score: 1

    And cigarette and cigar manufacturers will enter the fray, adding layers of protection to the "flavor" that accompanies their image in the marketplace.

    Now, if someone can patent the smell of nicotine, or the stale smell of cigarette smoke, they can put the tobacco companies out of business.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  65. Stench of Failure by bushwahd · · Score: 0

    I'm patenting the "Stench of Failure" then suing the George W Lush Administration for ONE.... MILLLLLION... DOLLARS! I'll be rich beyond my wildest dreams of avarice! Mwa-ha-ha-ha!

  66. Some future conversations.. by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Funny

    "So Mr and Mrs Smith, you want to have kids? Mrs Smith you were born from a Monsanto engineered egg in fertility treatment? ah, in that case they'll require a license fee for reproduction."

    "Sir, im closing your hot dog stand down, you don't have a license to publicly serve that mustard, only a home license!"

    "Police today raided the home of a 68 year old woman involved in illigal cookie piracy. She is currently being charged with distribution to a number of local children."

    "License to grow apples, thats $40,000 per tree or you can get a site license for $1,200,000?"

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Some future conversations.. by acceleriter · · Score: 1

      It's even funnier if you take the first part of the second paragraph as the last sentence of the first paragraph :).

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

  67. 3D shape and smell already trademarked by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 1
    There are famous cases of 3D shapes being trademarked, such as the Jif lemon, and the Cocoa-cola bottle. At one time, printer companies wanted to claim that the shape of their printer cartridges was a 3-D trademark and so could not be copied. However, 3D trademarks are a lot harder to establish than 2-D ones - some of them had to be around for 50 years - so I don't think this worked.

    I believe there is a US sewing thread company has trademarked a peach (?) smell on its product. If course, we will not know whether this smell trademark stands up in law until another company wants to stick the same smell on their thread. Perhaps the vanilla smell of Play-Doh will provide the court case we need?

  68. Smell Can be Trademarked Even Now... by zungu · · Score: 0

    The person who posted this does not know that smell can already be trademarked. The perfume that is used in victoria secret stores is already trademarked. I wonder when it comes to Intellectual Property slashdot posters go by emotions rather than facts.

  69. Patentable software: by hummassa · · Score: 1

    only in those insane parts of the world. Like the US of A. Down here, "computer programs" are ABSOLUTELY NOT patentable.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  70. Finally a working business plan by SkippyTPE · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. Patent the taste of chicken
    2. Sue everyone (because we all know that everything tastes like chicken)
    3. Profit!!!!!!!

    1. Re:Finally a working business plan by SoTuA · · Score: 1

      Ever wonder if the first primitive man who tasted chicken said "Hmmmm, tastes like lizard!"? ;)

  71. This is just as absurd . . . by acceleriter · · Score: 1

    . . . as would be the ability to patent a color. Now that smell is as quantifiable via parameters as color is via wavelength, I would think this would tend to close the door on patentability. Of course, it is never wise to underestimate the malfeasance of our "represenative" lawmakers when in the presence of the smell of fresh cash.

    --

    CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

  72. Patenting Victory by shuz · · Score: 1

    Oh how I do love the smell of napalm in the morning.

    --
    There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
  73. Smell Captured in Photo on Discovery by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 1

    Link HERE

  74. Mechanism for useful goal...sounds OK to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IANAL and I didn't even RTFA yet but the parent perhaps doesn't realize how devoid of specific "end" uses patents can be? If the mechanisms by which some mixture produces the sensation of smell are known, then the "useful function" being performed by the invention of the mixture is the "creation of a sense of a particular smell in humans". That's it. There's your use.

    I am not sure what case or phrase in the laws would prevent this. A patentable method for cutting lumber into 2x4s does not say what the 2x4s are to be used for. The implication is that some collection of secondary goals is possible (building houses) but they need not all be utilitarian in nature (building pretty facades which are the subject of design patents).

    I presume they have patents for makeup and/or make up application? Pray tell, what utilitarian goal does that serve? Rather, one could argue its negative saying it serves to resist Darwinian forces which would ordinarily deny fitness to the unattractive? ;)

    1. Re:Mechanism for useful goal...sounds OK to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pray tell, what utilitarian goal does that serve?

      You're quite right about how little usefullness is necessary. Patents are hardly ever denied or invalidated for lack of utility.

      You could get a patent on a composition of matter for making a car smell like over-cooked brussel sprouts if you had invented such a substance and wanted to pay for such a patent. Or, you could get a patent for a "special" bolt that breaks randomly. Utility is very much in the eye of the beholder, more's the pity.

      YIIALBIANYL. GYOGDL--YMNO.

  75. what? by waspleg · · Score: 1

    how do you "describe" the color orange? there are an infinite number of shades approaching colors on the other sides of whatever color wheel its on, are they all orange also?

    why is all this stupid shit even considered reasonable as enforceable and taken seriously by the gov't/court system at all in any way?

  76. Chords? by peacefinder · · Score: 1

    Receptor patterning opens the door for a variety of new patenting possibilities...

    That's like patenting a musical chord.

    --
    With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
  77. Re:A few beefs (corrected) by ajakk · · Score: 1
    For example, UPS cannot, and will never be able to, trademark the color brown despite their significant investment in the commercials "What can BROWN do for you?"
    As noted above, UPS has trademarked the color brown. Serial number 76408109.
  78. Pr0N !!!!!! by computechnica · · Score: 1

    Nuff said

  79. I can see the day by floydman · · Score: 1

    Where its going to be much cheaper not to shower!!

    --
    The lunatic is in my head
  80. woohoo! by Icegryphon · · Score: 0

    Now I can patient the taste of air. What? Amazon already did? darnit.

  81. In layman's speak (biochemists speak up) by GuyFawkes · · Score: 1


    As I understand it our senses of taste and smell are essentially based on detecting the actual physical shape of molecules, because it when a physical shape (say a plug) matches a physical receptor for that shape (say a socket) something goes "bing" and you get x taste or smell.

    As an aside there is a known medical condition where people's senses are crosswired in their heads and smells trigger taste reactions, I remember an old case of brain surgery where taste and auditory was crosswired and a drop of vinegar sounded like an explosion.

    so, if it's all shape based, we're going to get into levels of accuracy, is it just "sweet" like sugar, or is it the particular sweetness of tate and lyle demerara sugar?

    To be honest I'd be more worried about similar molecule shape patents, after all molecule shape is defined by molecule chemical composition and formula, specifically here I'm talking about large corporations patenting chunks of amino acid that happens to occur naturally in my body.

    Where do I stand when someone owns a patent that matches a part of my DNA?

    Do they own a part of me?
    Do I have to pay them a licence to have kids and reproduce my DNA in part?

    Or, far more worryingly, do they have the right to use associated knowledge, eg this bit of DNA that we own the patent to is associated with people who have a specific biochemical makeup in their brains, a biochemical signature that is associated with people who are great to have around in times of great troubles, but who are a real pain in the ass in a modern USA style society where you will conform and obey citizen or else.

    Can they use this patented knowledge to deny me legal insurance, limit life and injury insurance, and screen me from having the sorts of jobs where I might cause some shit for big brother?

    Can I be pressured to report to level 42 for biochemical "readjustment" or "training", or simply disenfranchised as a citizen otherwise?

    It's so fucking easy.

    Nowadays you don't need to run the risk of being taken to court for saying "no fucking niggers" because all you have to do is for example check for the presence of the genetic code for sickle cell anaemia, except of course you're testing for your genetic IP, not sickle cell, just so happens the two overlap.

    comments?

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
  82. new car by paz5 · · Score: 1

    Here's to the first car manufacturer to patent "new car smell".

  83. What does Slurm smell like? by csoto · · Score: 1

    That would probably make a great air freshener for my car.

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  84. does this mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that farts can now smell goood!?!?

  85. Patent this by RancidBeef · · Score: 1

    I'd patent the smell of bullshit, but I guess the smell wafting from the USPO would be prior art.

  86. I can't wait sending smell by dindi · · Score: 1

    roses for my wife
    poo for spammers

    seriously.... I cannot wait hexediting flavours and smells ...

    I cannot wait getting spam that smells like cat piss :( advertising peach scented odour remover :)

    I cannot wait playing doom 5 on ps4 with all the scent/flavour/vibrating sensors being stuffed into my sensing organs ....
    smell the rotten flesh, the taste of your own blood .... and being shocked by electric contacts and burnt by tiny lighters ..... yuck

  87. Nah ..... by gstoddart · · Score: 1
    There's this Chinese restaurant down the street from my house that should patent the smell of its dumpster for possible future military applications.


    Too much prior art. :-P

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  88. Nice try. by stonecypher · · Score: 1

    It's been more than a hundred years since each of these issues were settled by American law, by a lawsuit issued by Coca Cola against Pepsi and a lawsuit issued by Channel against a now-defunct perfume maker. Neither scents nor flavors may enjoy any form of legal protection more complex than a trade secret.

    --
    StoneCypher is Full of BS
  89. Why do you think they have legal dictionaries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eh? Be nice. It's not grandparent's fault that you're ignorant of what those terms mean.

    An "invention" is a *particular* way of doing something. I can, therefore, patent say a particular antigravity generator (assuming I can actually build one, of course).

    I cannot, however, patent the "idea" of making antigravity generators; only the particular way in which I made mine. And yes, software shouldn't be patentable, but even there, you can only patent your new sorting method, not the idea of sorting things...

    Now then, yes, some lawyers are constantly working on expanding such things, and IP law is becoming all too cumbersome, etc. but I should hope that our moderators would be smarter than to mod up WRONG information posted by someone who clearly doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

    Then again, this IS slashdot, and I'm not new here, so I ask any sensible readers to mod parent (-1, Overrated).

    1. Re:Why do you think they have legal dictionaries? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Way to post anonymous and waste everyone's time. Tell ya what, when someone sues you (or the company you work with) for software patent infringement, and you've actually read the patent, you'll understand that they really can and do patent ideas. It would be great if people patented useful algorithms. It would rock if I could type into a patent search engine "dithering algorithm" and look at all of Adobe's patents. If I could even license em, that would be great. But it's not the case. Software patents consist of terms like "method for sending information derived from random number generator to server". The bozos at the patent office don't know what they're doing so they approve the patent and all of a sudden every client/server app on earth is infringing on this guy's patent. Sure, there is "prior art" but going to court and proving this is more expensive than just paying his blood sucking lawyer.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  90. Patent on gas...released from humans and pets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..I'll just collect a penny each time someone or their pet lets one rip. ahhhh...the smell of money..oops, I have to pay the patent owner of smell of money.

  91. Re:A few beefs (corrected) by gearry · · Score: 1
    Finally, it is unlikely design patents can be extended to smells. Design patents protect new, nonobvious ornamental designs applied to useful things. Application requires a drawing of the design, and protection is narrowly limited to that design. Therefore, this patent set provides protection for visual elements of things. Even if a change in the law were permitted - how does one draw a scent? Submit a sample of a scent? How does one check to see if a scent infringes? Everything, theoretically has a smell, should every item manufacturered have a scent patent?


    It seems to me that you have just outlined the required modifications to the law that would be needed in order to establish scent patents. The ability to specifically quantify a scent in a human-centered way is exactly what the recent Nobel prize was recognizing. It could be argued that the scent is a design implemented on top of a common delivery mechanism. I am not saying that I would be in favor of such changes to the law, but I am almost sure that some entity will attempt this once they realize that they have a new, concrete way to codify their scents other than just a recipe.

    Gearry
    --
    like g-a-r-y, only different
  92. Who gets the patent for Methane (i.e. Fart) smells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A serious question! I mean, you know ... ?!

  93. Wow, imagine the possiblities... by 8string · · Score: 1

    for these folks!

  94. New bioweapon.. by adeyadey · · Score: 1

    I am going to patent the smell of my socks..

    --
    "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
  95. Frey is a hack by ItWasThem · · Score: 1

    From Thomas Frey? If you take one look at his web sites you'll see he's a fantastic dreamer who distorts facts to fit his utopia future. He also never finishes anything! Whatever happened to that book of future inventions he was composing? It made the news, was featured prominently on their site, and then once all the press had left the page changed to "well we WERE going to do a book BUT now we don't think we will".

    This guy has no track record. So what if he earned awards at IBM? That doesn't make him an authority on the future. Again, look at his site and some of his "bold" predictions. Intelligent shoes? Space hotels? Gee how original.

    I'm sorry to come off so harshly on him but it's frustrating when someone like this gets any press because they feed on it and in the end don't deliver any results when the spotlight goes away.

  96. Can smell patents be overturned? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Can smell patents be defeated if there is a prior fart?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."