SCOTUS To Hear Patentable Thought Case

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."

Comments

Re:Everything should be patented

[tepples]

If it takes 15 years to get a patent reviewed, the patent owner only gets a scant 5 years to enforce their patent against people

There is already a term extension for patents whose approval was unjustly delayed. See Title 35, United States Code, section 156 and the surrounding sections. If the Patent Office gets too bogged down, then Congress could broaden this extension or, as a last-ditch effort, just reinstate the rule for patents that were subsisting as of 1997: the greater of filing + 20 or grant + 17.

Star Trek's Patents (Real!)

[Derling Whirvish]

Paramount Pictures Corp - USS Enterprise - Patent D260789
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D260789.WKU.&OS=PN/D260789&RS=PN/ D260789

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Phaser - Patent D259939
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D259939.WKU.&OS=PN/D259939&RS=PN/ D259939

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Insignia Pin - Patent D261872
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D261872.WKU.&OS=PN/D261872&RS=PN/ D261872

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Uniform - D279135
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D279135.WKU.&OS=PN/D279135&RS=PN/ D279135

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Font - Patent D262037
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D262037.WKU.&OS=PN/D262037&RS=PN/ D262037

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Klingon Battle Crusier - Patent
D263856
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D263856.WKU.&OS=PN/D263856&RS=PN/ D263856

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek - Miranda Class Starship - Patent
D272839
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D272839.WKU.&OS=PN/D272839&RS=PN/ D272839

Paramount Pictures Corp. Star Trek Wrath of Khan parasite - Patent
D275777
http://patft.usp

Re:Michael Crichton = Un-Informed

[Coryoth]

BTW, the following article describes in a much more cogent way the issues with this particular case than the Crichton editorial.

http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/10/labcor p_v_metab_1.html

Fishing around on that site I found this later article which covers the case and the briefs in far more detail, as well as including links to the actual briefs. It is also important to note that the blog author was one of the drafters of the brief filed by the "Intellectual Property Owner".

Jedidiah.

Re:Everything should be patented

[jbn-o]

This rather naive notion assumes that the terms of patents wouldn't be extended like the term of copyright has been extended many times, so that these patents actually would expire in some relatively short amount of time. It assumes that the adverse impact borne by the poor would not be so great as to seriously injure and/or kill them. It assumes that the loss to other freedoms we value would not be so great that we would miss those other freedoms: what if an unlimited patent scope poses greater interference with our freedom of speech or assembly? What if our ability to effectively challenge our government's actions is curtailed in a whole new way, thanks to making every idea patentable?

I don't think your concept has been seriously considered enough to merit a +5 "Interesting" moderation, nor do I think it's good enough to seriously contemplate implementation. Your idea is what I'd normally associate with a shill for a large patent holder, like IBM or some other multinational corporation that cross-licenses its patents to cushion the blow the patent regime imposes on other organizations and individuals.

Re:Outsourcing?

[Petrushka]

I'm afraid so. When the USA enters into any kind of trade agreement with another country, it's not just about taxes and tariffs: especially in recent years, the USA puts pressure on the other country to "harmonise" its laws with the USA in various respects, including intellectual property laws. This happened especially prominently with the free trade agreement between the USA and Australia (details courtesy of Wikipedia), when Australia agreed to extend copyright to life-plus-70-years and introduce legislation to enforce the use of DRM.

Prior Art surely?

[CrankyOldBastard]

I met Steve, who along with his twin brother Robert, were the twins responsible for the connection between b12 and homocystiene urea back in 1980. He took megadoses of b12 and b6, and didnt have the retardation associated with the disease, although he did have the sparse hair and elongated bones. His identical twin was retarded - he didnt take the B vitamin supplements.

He showed me articles about his brother and himself in journals and texts in the UNE library in 1980, and the journals included reports on his "treatment" and how by heeping the levels of (as I recall) pyridoxine hyrocloride up it pushed the reaction to produce less homocysteine and more cysteine. He had regular blood tests to check that he wasnt accumulating homocyctiene in the blood. I recall him saying that his brother would be the last homocycteine urea sufferer to have the retardation, and although his brother died (he couldnt communicate a kidney infection to his carers), he was proud that the two of them were able to hgbe part of finding the cure.

Looks to me that Metabolite didnt do a very good literature search. I wonder how the shareholders would feel to know that research $$$$ were spent reproducing 1960's and 1970's research?