Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawyer Sues To Get a Patent On Marketing

Posted by kdawson on from the series-of-gears dept.

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."

5 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. 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. :)

  2. 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.

    --
    My blog
  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. 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/
  5. 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)