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."

21 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. The Future is Almost Here by dsginter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:The Future is Almost Here by Skrynesaver · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You jest, but we currently have US lobbyists acting for US companies in the EU attempting to remove the concept of independent open standards from Europe's ICT policy framework, so that all attempts at interoperation will result in a payment to someone. Any notion of a commons is clearly anathema to some companies and cultures.

      Take a look at this article in the Linux Journal

      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
    2. Re:The Future is Almost Here by Tx · · Score: 4, Funny

      I defend the right to bare arms and resolve conflicts like this in duels.

      Easy there, I am also a fan of short sleeved shirts, but I'm not sure this is appropriate or traditional attire for a duel.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    3. Re:The Future is Almost Here by DevConcepts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:The Future is Almost Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Never. Their too busy trying to make there mark here and they're.

      Sorry, just couldn't resist. Do you realise how difficult that was to type for someone with a traditional education (get it right or say hello to my friend Mr. Board Rubber)? I had to erect a fort first, just in case of flying educational supplies ;o)

  2. becomes? by wjh31 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    sorry, prior art, no dice

  3. Actually, lost on appeal and bilksi upheld by aaribaud · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. :)

    1. Re:Actually, lost on appeal and bilksi upheld by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now, that Slashdot readers don't RTFA is usual, but submitters? Sheesh. :)

      I'm telling you, the Take a Shot Every Time kdawson Posts Bullshit Drinking Game is the #1 contributor to cirrhosis of the liver.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  4. Another one bites the dust! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Another one bites the dust! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sure we all wait with bated breath.

      I'm waiting with baited breath; currently standing on the Redmond campus front lawn, wiggling a minnow between my teeth.

  5. Wait... by Tokerat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits.

    ...Stores?!?

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    1. Re:Wait... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
  6. not a machine by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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/
  7. companies are like snowflakes by Speare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:companies are like snowflakes by pmarini · · Score: 3, Funny

      you mean that a company never makes the same mistake twice ? :-)

      any reference to Microsoft in this post is purely coincidental...

      --
      Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
      Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
  8. Re:We should really be asking: by codegen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  9. Re:does that mean by MrMr · · Score: 3, Funny

    You need to get more into the spirit of things:
    Just claim you patented lying and start extorting all the other liars.

  10. Bullshit by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    'company is a physical thing, and as such analogous to a machine.'

    "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.

  11. Re:does that mean by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just claim you patented lying and start extorting all the other liars.

    It's that kind of thinking that built this great land.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  12. Prior art? Record companies... by Mirar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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?

  13. Marketing stunt. by Samschnooks · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I have a hunch: I don't think he really wants the patent to use it. I think he wants to get this patent to prove that he's a god among patent attorneys and all those firm that want patents or to sue for patents will hire him and his firm.

    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.