Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Sues To Get a Patent On Marketing
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Lawyer Scott Harris, one of the inventors of the concept of a 'marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits,' is appealing the USPTO's rejection of US Patent Application No. 09/387,823 which was intended to patent that 'invention.' This court action is important because it directly challenges the In Re Bilski ruling, which tightened the rules to get rid of most so-called 'business method' patents. One of Mr. Harris's legal theories is that a 'company is a physical thing, and as such analogous to a machine.' If the name seems familiar, it's because Mr. Harris has a long history of inventive legal maneuverings. I'm honestly surprised that SCO never tried to hire or sue him."
sorry, prior art, no dice
IOW, since the court upheld in Re Bilski, this is another nail in the coffin for business patents.
What I'm waiting on is: What does this mean for software patents? I guess we're about to find out in the Microsoft v. TomTom case. I'm sure we all wait with bated breath.
My blog
The lawyers will obviously need to eat and get haircuts....
Lawyers don't eat food, they consume the souls of their clients and their hair doesn't grow because their dead.
Does this man really have the time and money to waste on something pointless like this?
He's a lawyer. You do the math.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
"A machine is any device that uses energy to perform some activity. In common usage, the meaning is that of a device having parts that perform or assist in performing any type of work." Neither a technical nor a vernacular understanding of machinery supports his argument. Only in the twisted logic common to LawyerLandtm could this ever be considered a machine. Lawyers ought to be disbarred for this behavior, as only someone who has an incredibly dishonest character could torture a definition like this.
As long as it's possible to be "inventive" with the law, we will all suffer.
"Marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits" sounds like what record companies have been doing for almost a century?
He appears to be trying to patent the concept of a marketing company or more specifically a software marketing company .... I suspect these already exist and have done for some time ....
Prior art is every software marketing company in existence ...forget if it can be patented due to it being a process, it has been around so long and is so obvious it cannot be patented
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
One of Mr. Harris's legal theories is that a 'company is a physical thing, and as such analogous to a machine.'
I thought the legal representation of a company was as a legal entity comparable to an individual for tax and other purposes. Then, his argument breaks down because he'd be implying that individuals are analogous to machines...
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
Or he might just be trying to prove how ridiculous the patent system is.
Typical. kdawson hasn't a clue about Intellectual Property issues, yet posts constantly and inaccurately about them.
Firstly, the lawyer did not "sue" to get a patent. The application was (appropriately) rejected by the patent examiner. The applicant appealed the rejection to the PTO Board of Appeals and the rejection was upheld. The applicant then appealed that rejection to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which applied Bilski to uphold the rejection again. Despite the fact that a court was involved, this was not a "lawsuit."
Rather than appealling to the CAFC, the applicant could have filed a civil action against the Commissioner of Patents in the DC Circuit Court. This would be considered a lawsuit.
The only story here should be that the Patent system worked.
And please, please, STOP posting articles with headlines announcing that somebody "won" a patent. Patents are issued or allowed.
hi!