Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCOTUS To Hear Patentable Thought Case

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the get-out-of-my-head dept.

skayell writes "The Supreme Court of the United States will hear a landmark patent case involving whether or not thoughts and relationships are patentable. Michael Crichton's essay in the New York Times attempts a thoughtful summary of Metabolite's primary assertion: they not only own the connection between homocysteine levels in the blood and vitamin B12 deficiency, but also any thought connecting the two."

6 of 394 comments (clear)

  1. crap by Janek+Kozicki · · Score: 5, Funny

    this is the first time I used a tag crap, you can follow if you wish :)

    --
    #
    #\ @ ? Colonize Mars
    #
  2. are you thinking what i'm thinking? by dirtyhippie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Guy 1: "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"

    Guy 2: "Yes!"

    Guy 1: "I'll see you in court, asshole."

  3. Out of control IP makes me wonder if by vrimj · · Score: 4, Funny

    maybe the tower of Babel was actually a restrictive IP regime... someone got copyright on the alphabet so someone else had to reverse-engineer to avoid licensing fees

  4. How you know you're at the wretched extreme by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Funny
    The Supreme Court of the United States will hear a landmark patent case involving whether or not thoughts and relationships are patentable.

    You'd think with all the big issues facing the country something like this wouldn't pass the laugh test. Yet it's made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

    If thoughts turn out to be patentable, then I'm going to be first in line to patent any sexual or obscene thought involving a virtualization of another human being, animal or farm implement used for or engaging in sexual activity, for the purpose of self-stimulation.

    Then I'm going sue every one of you wankers on /. :) It'll give whole new meaning to the phrase "penny for your thoughts".

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  5. Re:Everything should be patented by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That'll work well, until the injunction on infringing on my patent for "An Apparatus and Process for Extracting Oxygen from a Low-Density Fluid Using Positive and Negative Pressure Differentials" comes into effect.

    Seventeen years is a long time.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  6. simple really... by srussia · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!