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."
I can see a point where the United States becomes a lawsuit-based economy: instead of producing actual stuff, we'll all just patent stuff like email on a cell phone (who would have thought of that otherwise?).
The lawyers will obviously need to eat and get haircuts, so the money will eventually trickle down into the hands of the middle class.
I'm a genius - off to the patent office to patent this idea! I can't wait for my first royalty check.
More
sorry, prior art, no dice
Misleading title and summary. The main point is not that the lawyer sued and challenges in Re Bilski, but that he lost on Appeal and that in Re Bilski was ruled dispositive...
... as Groklaw's link mentions right from their own title. Now, that Slashdot readers don't RTFA is usual, but submitters? Sheesh. :)
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
advertisers can't lie without paying a royalty? Maybe I should patent lying.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits.
...Stores?!?
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
His argument that a company is a physical thing analogous to a machine is flawed. In our legal system, a company is a "non-natural person", so what he's trying to do is to patent a person, and that's a definite no-no.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
If a company is a physical thing, an apparatus, then it is constructed in large part by the people who staff it. All people are unique, and any permutation of a group of people forms a unique subculture. The team either gels or it doesn't, in a unique pattern of ways. Real patents document how to reproduce the results, and anyone is free to try, once the sanctioned monopoly rights have expired. Therefore, a company does not need patent protection, as it will be impossible to reproduce the same mechanism.
[
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.
"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?
Then again, he may actually want the patent so he can hire other lawyers to sue on his behalf so that then, he can sit home, watch his DVD collection of Boston Legal, sip Scotch, and wish that he was hooked up with such hot women as Alan Shore has.
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!!!
A Process for Obtaining Legal Ownership of Certain Intellectual Property
ABSTRACT
An application is submitted to a government run office which oversees the process of granting and protecting intellectual property rights. Applications contain explanations of methods, design, and applications for said creations, and are often accompanied by diagrams and figures representing the proposed creation for which the applicant ("the Owner") will seek to obtain exclusive rights to create or sell. Once such rights are granted, any facsimile or copy produced by anyone other than the Owner, without express permission of the Owner, will been deemed a forgery and they will be prosecuted pursuant to U.S. intellectual property laws. The following rules shall be applied to any application under consideration:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
None. I thought of it first and no one else had ever even conceived of such an invention. Take my word for it, no research necessary. Don't even bother Google'ing it.
DESCRIPTION OF PRIOR ART
Not that this is at all relevant, but see the previous section.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Uselessly over-abused process of rewarding those who deserve it the least and providing consistent unfair advantages to those who will hinder progress where progress is often needed the most.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY-
Patent Application No. 7,512,440
GRANTED 3/10/2009
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!
I have been granted a patent on staying home from work and hitting the bong.
To the office with all of you!