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."

Comments

The Future is Almost Here

[dsginter]

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.

Re:The Future is Almost Here

[Tx]

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.

Re:The Future is Almost Here

[DevConcepts]

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.

Re:The Future is Almost Here

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

becomes?

[wjh31]

sorry, prior art, no dice

Actually, lost on appeal and bilksi upheld

[aaribaud]

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. :)

Re:Actually, lost on appeal and bilksi upheld

[Rogerborg]

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.

Another one bites the dust!

[morgan_greywolf]

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.

Wait...

[Tokerat]

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

...Stores?!?

not a machine

[tverbeek]

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.

Re:We should really be asking:

[codegen]

Does this man really have the time and money to waste on something pointless like this?

He's a lawyer. You do the math.

Re:does that mean

[MrKaos]

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

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