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
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
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.