Slashdot Mirror
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."
this is the first time I used a tag crap, you can follow if you wish :)
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
Let's just have patents on EVERYTHING, every gene, every molecule, every action you could ever think of. Then in 17 years (or whatever the time limit is) when they expire, we can forget all this patent bullshit and just get on with life again. I'd be willing to wait those 17 years if the patent system would just expire.
Watch my YouTube atheist video blog (user NickGisburne2000) for arguments against religion
Guy 1: "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
Guy 2: "Yes!"
Guy 1: "I'll see you in court, asshole."
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
Sony just lost another court case relating to the vibration feedback on the dual shock joysitck.
(The claim is that the eccentric wheel is attached directly to the stick not the case and that this is novel because it gives feedback directly to the stick).
I found a patent that match exactly the same feature, same linkages, same thing, an eccentric shake feeback mechanism on a joystick on an aircraft simulator from Fokker in 1980's. Yet Sony just lost another case, even though its the same thing only smaller.
The court assume the patent office has done its job.
As long as the patent office doesn't enforce novelty and non-obviousness, the same patents will keep coming up again and again and again and the courts will enforce each new one.
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"!
A more elegant solution: if you hold the patent on the diabetes gene, you should be held responsible for all cases of diabetes, treated or not.
I completely agree. I got into a major arguement earlier here on /. with a patent attorney over this very issue, and the conversation further convinced me of this concept.
Regardless of what endeavor of engineering I might participate in (and I do consider myself to be primarily an engineer), I fail to see any benefit at all to any kind of patent, including mechanical engineering... the classical example of patents.
I strongly consider patent attorneys to be simply fronts for a massive scam, and a modest revenue source for the U.S. Government. The expansion of patentable items is happening precisely because of the money that can be generated by this agency, which essentially pays for itself and even provides a modest surplus that doesn't need strict accounting, and can even be diverted to black ops if necessary. Talk about a conflict of interest on the part of the government here that is hearing the case.
Far too often I personnally know of people that have filed a patent, only to get themselves raked over the coals and have their "inventions" taken away anyway. A classical example is my grandfather, who patented about 30 different inventions and spent a minor fortune on attorney costs and filing fees for all that work. I think he got a total of about $2000 in royalties for all that work. One of his patents is explicitly cited as a fore-runner to Compact Discs (and subsequent technologies like the DVD) and developed encryption technologies that have been used by the NSA.
Unfortunately this is more of a typical example and not the exception. It is a very strong exception where a genuinely innovative concept is patented and a major company "buys" the patent and pays royalties to the inventor. Far too often a patent is filed strictly by a major company to protect themselves from any other idiot who also tries to file a competing patent that is subsequently accepted by the USPTO. The other use is to do a business negotiation where patents are "swapped", such as what happened with MPEG-4 and the DVD Forum (formerly the DVD Consortium).
The only practical benefit that I can see from patents right now is that they can preserve for future generations different techniques and manufacturing concepts, including assembly guidelines and how things are made. The problem with this attitude is that a typical patent application is so sparse that even somebody "learned in the art" can hardly recreate the patented process. They usually go into just enough detail to muddy the waters if there is an "infringement", and are so vague and interpreted so broadly by courts that you can't really even know if what you are doing violates a patent until after you have been slapped by a lawyer with a lawsuit.
Furthermore, engineers are explicitly told never to read any patents, under fear by management that they might "accidently" incorporate a patented idea into their design. So what is the real pratical benefit other than to keep a group of lawyers wealthy?