Slashdot Mirror
USPTO Issues Provisional Storyline Patent
cheesedog writes "The USPTO will issue the first storyline patent in history today, with two others following in the next few months. Right to Create points out that this was anticipated several months ago in a story by Richard Stallman published in the The Guardian, UK. With the publication of this not-yet-granted patent, its author can begin requiring licensing fees for anyone whose activities might fall within its claims, including book authors, movie studies, television studios and broadcasters, etc. The claims appear to cover the literary elements of a story involving an ambitious high school student who applies for entrance to MIT and prays to remain sleeping until the acceptance letter comes, which doesn't happen for another 30 years."
You think that's bad, wait until you realize that this means that books written outside the US will be banned inside the US because the represent patent infringement.
The US is going to start banning books
I wonder how they're going to dispose of confiscated books, hmm? Perhaps burning them would be an efficient and effective way to destroy them.
Yes, of course, the US must confiscate and burn all banned books! Because this is what capitalistic democracies do to protect their citizens.
How many rights does a democracy have to curtail or eliminate before it ceases to be a democracy?
Think I'm overreacting? Then think of all the rediculous things that software patents have allowed and then apply that to BOOKS.
Action is needed to reverse this, but I doubt we'll see it while Bush is still in power.
I'm not a Bush fan in the slightest, but I don't see it being the kind of thing a Democrat president would give a crap about, either. Whoever is president when some ridiculously hyped movie gets its opening delayed by litigation will be the president to fight it.
Are you kidding? The MPAA will pee themselves with delight over this. They will support this wholeheartedly.
Analysis:
The issue of, "Who owns the story," is a thorny one in Hollywood. Professional screenwriters -- many of whom, by the way, are unionized because the studios kept abusing them way back when -- often retain the copyrights to their stories. Among other things, copyright affords the author the right to enjoin performance of their story in most media (since those are derivative works). However, copyright's scope is limited. You only have a case against a studio if the copying was direct. If the studio's work was substantially similar, then you get to sit in court for years and argue exactly how similar it was, and whether the studio's work A) constitutes plagiarism, and B) whether the degree of plagiarism is sufficient to warrant punishment by the courts. See Buchwald vs. Paramount for an example of how messy this can get.
Further, if a writer feels that s/he's being maltreated by the studios, s/he can vote with their feet and simply choose to work for someone else under different, hopefully better conditions. (In practice, this is more difficult than I'm making it sound.)
However, if plotline elements can be patented, then there will be a mad rush by the studios to acquire as many patents as possible. Once done, screenwriters will no longer be able to ply their trade without being expressly licensed by the studio to do so. The balance of power will shift massively to the studios, who will wield absolute veto power over who may write screenplays, and under what circumstances. ("I want to retain rights to the story." "I'm sorry; we don't offer plot element licenses under those conditions.")
This will also effectively kill those pesky independent screenwriters and film studios, since the large studios will simply refuse to license the plot elements. (The large studios won't have any difficulty; they'll merely cross-license with each other.) The studios could also, if they so wished, break the screenwriters' union overnight.
And, of course, you'll hear a bunch of self-serving blathering about how film production is massively expensive, and successful film plots are already hard to come by, so successful plot elements should be afforded the maximum protection possible because, darn it, it was expensive to develop. This "reasoning" is, of course, complete bullshit, but it'll play well in the trade magazines and the halls of Congress.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Seriously fucked
What sickens me is your sickness is going to seep into Canada. I'll fight this one tooth and nail.
Really, at the risk of being redundant you are deeply badly fucked.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Lots of people have done this type of analysis, and it is quite valuable. That doesn't mean that the subject matter is without merit, however. EVERY Simpsons episode has followed roughly the same structure for ten years, and it still captivates audiences. Ever notice that the first 5 minutes have nothing to do with the next 25? Yup, that's the one.
Someone is going to mod me up for saying this, then mod me down for being obvious, but read The Hero with a Thousand Faces. It goes into painstaking detail about the idealized hero story, and yet the structure fits tons of popular and historical media such as Terminator 2, Heart of Darkness, Cowboy Bebop, Tarzan, Blade, Odysseus, the new testament in the Bible, etc, etc.
There are several other structures out there, and nearly infinite variants, but if you look at media with a critical eye you will find that all good films, books, shows, and games fall into set patterns of challenges, setbacks, losses, and eventual triumph (or not). If I may be so bold, most truly great pieces of media aren't made by artists, but by craftsmen. An artist explores their feelings as they create, producing something which is generally more intellectually engaging than emotionally so. A craftsman knows every tool of their trade, and hones their skills, tricks, and abilities towards controlling the viewer's reaction. Spielberg is a master craftsman. Vonnegut is a craftsman. Even in artistic pieces like Y Tu Mama Tambien, the craftsmanship is present and in the forefront.
I say this because too many people try to create media from the heart, without realizing that you really need to engage your head thoroughly in order to focus on how to effect the heart of your audience. These people are master magicians: they conjure up images and emotions using smoke and mirrors. And like master magicians, they have to know the routines, and know how to work the routines so that they don't seem like routines. Part of the magic is taking something that was slaved over for years, with every detail hashed out and revised in painstaking detail, and making it look completley natural and unintended.
But there is magic, there is structure. And if you want to become a magician, you need to give up the magic and learn how it is done.
The ______ Agenda
You are wondering why Scientist want to go to Mars ? Self Explanatory. They want to escape all this bizzareness :P
Maybe the USPTO is saying "Ooh, good idea!" because it is purposefully committing suicide?
I mean, that's a weird idea, but it seems to me that they're basically forcing the government to deal with the problem. Surely any halfway intelligent person can see that this system just isn't working
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Wow, what category does this fit into? Let's try all of them shall we?
Yah. What have we learn about categories?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Hollywood will die slowly as a new Hollywood without patent restrictions will emerge in Europe or Asia.
Maybe it'll be the end of the Oscars as a bonus.
home
Could be worse.
You might be on to something there. It would not be the first time that people do exactly what they are told to do even though they know it's stupid in order to highlight that stupidity. Frequently, trying to explain to those in power that they are wielding their power wrongly just does not work; they need to see the consequences of their actions before they realise they have made a mistake.
Very insightful.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Wait a second... Since when does democracy (or majority rule, or representative rule) imply individual rights?
Democracy is simply the modern justification for power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end). Democracy does not, in any way, remove the element of power from government. 500 years ago, rulers justified themselves by claiming they were following god's orders. Today, rulers justify themselves by claiming they are following the majority's orders. Even when they are, does it really justify coercion? Don't be afraid to ask that question.
Democracy is still government, and government is still founded on the principle of coercion. Democracy, monarchy, republic, tyranny... the core principle of any government is identical. Government is defined by its unique "right" to initiate force as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal. How they achieved that "right" is simply irrelevant to the definition of government.
Democracy is not immune to oppression. It is still impossible to curtail power. If power could be contained, then it wouldn't be power, would it? How can the "right" to initiate force possibly be contained? Only by eliminating it -- and that is not going to happen any time soon.
Personally, I say the type of government doesn't matter worth a damn; what matters is the level of respect a government has for individual freedom. If a society is more free living under the rule of a monarchy than the rule of a democracy, then I say the monarchy is more ethical and just, and you're damn right I'd rather live there.
There never was a prior art search.
First of all lets clairify what a provisional patent is... It's not a patent and does not hold the same teeth as a patent does. Simply put, it gives you the right to put Patent Pending on some technology that you are developing. In addition, if you apply for a patent in a years time from time of the filing of the provisional patent, the effective date of the patent (assuming it's approved... not all patents are) is the date of provisional patent filing. Oh, the date of provisional patent filing is the date you drop it off at the post office and send it via registered mail.
So, today you could write up a provisional patent document (not as formal as an actual patent application but it helps to keep it formal if you are going after the patent), enclose a check for $100.00 if you are an individual, send it via registered mail (not fedex, ups, but usps) and BAM, Patent Pending.
It doesn't mean you are going to get the patent. It's meant for smaller inventors to potentially apply for patents and decide if they want to invest the $10,000 it typically takes to possibly get a patent. The gives you protection of prior art no matter what so some company can't patent the technology even if you decide not to pursue a patent (as the provisional patent application counts as prior art and assuming the technology is "new and novel"). If you do decide to pursue a patent the effective date of the patent is the date you sent it via registered mail.
Perhaps the Writers Guild of America could link its screenplay Registry to the Prior Art Database or feed directly to the USPTO. Screenwriters routinely submit their manuscripts. In fact, almost no studio, production company or agent will look at an unregistered script. As of about 10 years ago there were around 7,500 scripts registered each year. That should cover just about any conceivable reductionist plot line. Perhaps we can make it so that these people will have to essentially write the full works in order to establish novelty.
Eric Smalley