Slashdot Mirror


Man Tries to Patent His "Godly Powers"

KWInt1601 writes "A man who believes he is Christ files a patent application — and the formal dance of responding to office actions from the USPTO begins. Invoking the 1998 State Street decision, the applicant argues, 'like software, godly powers is a method, and affects a machine. Like business methods, godly powers produces a useful, concrete, and tangible result, and that should be all that's needed for statutory material.'"

139 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Please grant it... by SMoynihan · · Score: 5, Funny

    It would be freaking hilarious if they granted it, and he went around suing all the Churches...

    Please, please, please...

    1. Re:Please grant it... by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      Good luck getting God to abide by the court's decision... can't sue the churches, they don't claim to have any direct control over godly power, just a hotline to the guy who does.

    2. Re:Please grant it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good luck getting God to abide by the court's decision... can't sue the churches, they don't claim to have any direct control over godly power, just a hotline to the guy who does.

      So, this guy should take a page out of the ISP/Cable company/cell provider book and charge for access?

    3. Re:Please grant it... by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably a good thing then that churches are the last place that you'll ever find God.

    4. Re:Please grant it... by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Flying Spaghetti Monster blesses your restaurant-centered loyalty.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    5. Re:Please grant it... by PPH · · Score: 2

      At least levy a surcharge for those who have exceeded their bandwidth cap. And maybe a TSO violation for excessive content sharing.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Please grant it... by stms · · Score: 1

      Shut up man you're gonna blow it they'll read your post and see this patent is in the public interest and once they see that there's no way they'll grant it.

    7. Re:Please grant it... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      In that case, they still might be liable for indirect infringement. Would be worth a try. Also, if god does not abide by the decision, you could just target the pope - after all he claims to act as god's immediate proxy on earth.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    8. Re:Please grant it... by jhoegl · · Score: 2

      Well, look. "God" can settle this today. He can either appear and say "Yes, this guy does my bidding and I do my good deeds through him", or he can not appear at which case I will be the only one that holds "Godly Powers".

      Wait for it.... wait for it....

      Thats what Im talkin bout.
      Count it!

    9. Re:Please grant it... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Did you just admit that, by virtue of declaring yourself god, are infringing on this idea? Mate, time to lawyer up ;)

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    10. Re:Please grant it... by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 1

      Who's gonna protest?

      --
      My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
    11. Re:Please grant it... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      You can always sue anyone; the only question is whether or not you will win. The interesting question here is that if he patents his powers as Christ's powers, if he trademarks his business activities as Christ, if "Christ" (tm) becomes a protected business asset, then while the church can argue that all of this is in the public domain, it wouldn't be the first time courts have turned around and granted trademark, copyright, business secret, patent types of protections to corporate entities for things that are commonplace and public. In fact, it probably isn't even rare -- people patent mathematical formulae in the context of cryptography, people patent mobius strips in the context of drive belts that wear equally on both sides, people trademark common names as business names in specific contexts all of the time -- Elmo's diner, Apple computers, Ford motorcars. Such protections typically extend to all business-related activities in the field of reference -- one can found Ford Washing Machines or Ford Publications, but another Ford motors would be in violation (with courts required to decide on the overlap).

      So if the patent office has lost its mind and grants him his patents, and he follows up by filing for certain trademarks to protect his legitimate business activities of performing patented miracles as Jesus Christ, he would certainly have an argument for suing churches for intruding on his business turf simply because their "business" has overlap and competes. Of course it would really help his arguments if he could, say, use his patented superpowers to restore sight to a blind man and make a beggar walk. He could then challenge the churches to prove that their so-far unsubstantiated claims to be able to do the same thing are valid, and when they fail to provide evidence that their many promises of delivering a service for their followers are true, the court might well issue an injunction to stop claiming that they can provide those services and require them to give up their use of a trademarked name in the context of a lying swindle promising to provide the same services as a real patented technology.

      It could happen. On the day that hell freezes over, but heck, the Holocene has already overstayed its welcome and the next Ice Age could start any day now, so hell could indeed freeze over soon.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    12. Re:Please grant it... by enjerth · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the pope can show prior art.

    13. Re:Please grant it... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You're not very likely to be inside a church unless you've already found God.

    14. Re:Please grant it... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well the last attempt at violating a godly patent (the patent on a method to distinguish good and evil using a fruit) ended with being thrown out of paradise.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    15. Re:Please grant it... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      "On Earth as it is in heaven."

      This would be like the movie Dogma. God will no longer be able to exercise miracles without becoming a criminal. This guy will have worked in a clever restraint on God's power that will destroy the fabric of reality. He must be stopped!!!

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    16. Re:Please grant it... by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Nice word play.

      But if somebody found God, why would they want to go to a church?. That's like resolving Einstein's Unification theory, then becoming an accountant.

    17. Re:Please grant it... by jkauzlar · · Score: 1
      In case no one else posted this, it's defnitely worth a look....

      Filed by UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

      Plaintiff Christopher Anthony Roller claims that defendant David Copperfield has been wrongfully using plaintiff’s godly powers to perform defendant’s magic. Plaintiff asserts one cause of action in his complaint, that David Copperfield’s use of his plaintiff’s go dly powers constitutes a labor dispute under Minn. Stat. 179.06. Plaintiff added in his response to defendant’s motion to dismiss the assertion that defendant’s use of plaintiff’s magic powers also constitutes a wrongful “usurpation of Godly powers.”

    18. Re:Please grant it... by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

      And Copperfield's response to the lawsuit:

      Plaintiff Christopher Roller (“Roller”) has commenced an action for a purported labor dispute against David Copperfield’s Disappearing, Inc. (“Copperfield”) under Minnesota Statute 179.06. This statute relates to the notice required to negotiate or make changes to a collective bargaining agreement. Seeing as how Roller has never worked for Copperfield in any capacity anywhere ever and has no relation to Copperfield whatsoever, he has no claim currently nor could he ever have any employment or labor claim against Copperfield. Plaintiff’s Complaint is best described as a claim for usurpation of Godly powers, which as this Court is aware, is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court or any court of this earth.

    19. Re:Please grant it... by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

      There is much to be amused by in the above link..

      Defendant respectfully urges the Court to visit Plaintiff’s website, www.mytrumanshow.com, to which the Plaintiff refers both the Court and Defendant. Therein Plaintiff makes the following claims including: Plaintiff is running for President of the United States in 2008 with Bill Gates as his running mate.

      • Plaintiff claims he is Jesus Christ.
      • Plaintiff claims he is God.
      • Plaintiff claims that Katie Couric and Celine Dion are his wives and are going to have his children.
      • Plaintiff claims there is a movie coming out soon about his life that stars Tom Hanks.
      • Plaintiff claims he has killed all of his enemies.
      • Plaintiff claims he will father 1,000,000 babies
    20. Re:Please grant it... by dwarfsoft · · Score: 1

      When you patent something, aren't you required to include the workings of your patent in the application? If he patents this then he will be forced to show HOW he uses his Godly powers. Wouldn't this mean he has to show to the world how his powers work? For somebody with "Godly" powers I would find this kind of self defeating.

      --
      Cheers, Chris
    21. Re:Please grant it... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      To commune with other people who have found God. That's like resolving Einstein's Unification theory, then goiing to a retreat with other theoretical physicists.

    22. Re:Please grant it... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      The man is crazy or a troll. He claims his godly power is giving others godly powers and keeps talking about proving that he is god yet offers no proof whatsoever. The only statement even trying to be proof is when he says they have godly powers, so that means they must of gotten them from me (who says they didn't actually get them from me doctor max). Till i see this guy give some one godly powers (or a DNA test from one of his 1, 000, 000 babies) he is just looney or a troll. YouTube clip with the man claiming to be god and Jesus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5H_kDC-rT8&feature=player_embedded (at least Jesus and god performed their own miracles and creations). Occam's razor would state that schizophrenia is more likely the case. That said the US patent system needs this to show how silly its becoming.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
  2. Ooh! Ooh! by Moryath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry, but we have prior art. See also Respawn.

    Also, your system has a respawn lag time of about 3 days. Not very efficient. Especially for someone who claims his boss/dad created an entire universe in less than a week.

    1. Re:Ooh! Ooh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's by design. It's intended to reduce the incidence of spawn-point camping.

    2. Re:Ooh! Ooh! by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

      Citation please. Where exactly in Genesis does it mention that the Earth got trashed by Lucifer during the Rebellion, and that it had to be rebuilt. That is the most... well... perhaps not the most outlandish explanation for the two Genesis stories I've heard.

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    3. Re:Ooh! Ooh! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nah, I bet it is to increase revenue. After all, you need a lot resources if your subscribers can't use your service for 3 days after dying.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Ooh! Ooh! by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Religion: Our word is always correct. However, if an inconsistency appears, we will retcon it.

      Well, at least God hasn't rebooted the universe yet like DC is.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    5. Re:Ooh! Ooh! by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      Your argument to him is to ... read the Bible? Are you sure you're on the right site? One has to accept (and this is from other humans now) that the Bible is the Word (or allegorical story or drug induced vision or spiced up genealogy record) of God for them to even care about what the Bible says what happened in the 3 days. Could it just be that a Jewish offshoot cult was into numerology too (along with the 12,40, etc)? Maybe the answer isn't in your book, but how people have acted as groups through out all of history.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    6. Re:Ooh! Ooh! by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      +1

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    7. Re:Ooh! Ooh! by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Packet loss is a bitch huh?

    8. Re:Ooh! Ooh! by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Not to mention "Lucifer" is/was not Satan but a fallen Babylonian King; the mixup is accredited to a mistranslation or, rather, misinterpretation of St. Jerome. http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    9. Re:Ooh! Ooh! by hierofalcon · · Score: 2

      Short version - First a correction of a misunderstanding of my original post. God did the destroying of the Earth due to Lucifer's rebellion. Lucifer didn't do the trashing himself. Different Hebrew words are used for create in Gen. 1:1 and the remainder of the chapter. This could just be author's preference or perhaps something is meant to be actually different. Isaiah 14 indicates that Lucifer has risen up and attacked God's throne at some point. When that happened, the earth was inhabited and He ruled it. Since that isn't recorded in known human history, it pushes this event back before Adam's history is recorded in the Bible. His ruling the planet also makes man's being given dominion something he wouldn't like, Lucifer's attempts to get it back by making man look bad, and man's fall from grace understandable. When we start reading of man in the Bible, Lucifer and his angels are already fallen from grace which goes against other descriptions in the Bible where at one point he was highly respected and was a music leader in God's kingdom.

      Jeremiah 4 is the only other place in the Bible where the Hebrew phase that translates without form and void (tohu va bohu IIRC) in Gen. 1 is used. Jeremiah describes the Earth in a destroyed state - but the description does not match the description of the end results of Noah's flood, confirming Isaiah 14. If you read Jer. 4 in parallel with Gen. 1, it makes much more sense that most of Gen 1. is talking about God restoring the earth to a habitable state as the result of this judgment. 2 Pet. 3 also has a parallel account of this. It again describes a time when the Earth was destroyed, yet the description is clearly that of more total destruction than in Noah's flood. The social order (kosmos) of Noah's time did not perish with that flood. Noah and his family maintained it. It is also entirely possible that the flood of Noah's day refers to the filling of the Black Sea from the Mediterranean . As far as Noah was concerned - had he lived in the middle of it - all of his known world would have been covered with water. It isn't absolutely necessary that the rest of the world got wiped out then as well - it could have been a local judgment due to the wickedness there.

      There are many other passages, particularly in Psalms which would point to at least two destructive floods and the Earth being created perfect the first time. The Earth described in Gen. 1 doesn't line up with these descriptions. I realize that this goes against the grain of many traditionally held beliefs of what Gen. 1 says, but it does make the Bible self-consistent where it would not be with the popular interpretation. It also allows science and the Bible to mesh with recorded observations of the age of the Earth. Since I'm not of the opinion that God is a deceiver, that works for me too. In addition, I find it interesting that the fossil record for mankind shows lots of branches which all come to a stop at roughly the same time (geologically speaking) and modern man starts after that point. It provides space for the entire fossil record without having T-Rex's chasing people in modern time without being noted anywhere in the historical record and eliminates a lot of other nonsense.

      This interpretation may not be right - study the Word yourself and decide - but it is much more consistent with what we know about the Earth, and it doesn't take anything away from the Bible as far as I can see.

    10. Re:Ooh! Ooh! by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Nah, everyone knows that the bird is the word. ;)

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    11. Re:Ooh! Ooh! by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

      Hmm... reading Old Testament books in parallel with each other. I know it's done with the New Testament, particularly the Gospel. That being said, I'm leery of doing that with New Testament, particularly since we're dealing with enormous timeframe reference issues, translations, etc. So let me ask you this: What ecclesiastical authority is behind this interpretation of the two Genesis stories, and linking Jeremiah and Psalms to account for the gap? Also, how do you explain a prior poster's assertion that Lucifer is a mistranslation of a fallen Babylonian/Phoenician King (I've heard the King of Tyre references)? I'd be interested to know what theological authority and research has been done to assert this, or if this is a reading based on an inerrancy philosophy.

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    12. Re:Ooh! Ooh! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The Word, referred to here, is Jesus Christ.

      That's a common misinterpretation. In reality, it's Microsoft Word.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    13. Re:Ooh! Ooh! by ikeman32 · · Score: 1

      To quote James T. Kirk in the Undiscovered Country, "Excuse me but, what does God need with a Star ship?" Now back to the 21st Century and rework the quote, "Excuse me but, what does the Son of God need with a patent? For that matter why does he need a patent? Who among us mere mortals can even recreate any such power?" Oh wait I am being logical, I think. Doesn't matter, the guy is a nut case. Be sides God himself would have original claim to the patent any way. If he really were the son of God he would simply be the offspring of the Creator and not the Creator himself. Unless of course you subscribe the holy trinity concept of three beings being one idea in which case there isn't even a set precedence for it on a legal stand point. Jr. doesn't get to claim title to Sr.'s work. But if we look at this from a ludicrous stand point and by some fluke of supreme stupidity he was granted the patent, he then would have legal backing to sue God and confiscate all of the churches thereby hijacking Christianity in all forms. Perhaps even Judaism, I now return you all to your regularly scheduled psychosis already in progress.

  3. Prior art by SMoynihan · · Score: 2

    I wonder how he'll deal with all the prior art... I mean, we're talking tens of thousands of years here.

    1. Re:Prior art by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      Only if you believe in fossil evidence which we all know is meant to test our faith.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    2. Re:Prior art by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Hm. I still see a way to circumvent that, in the form of a claim directed at a "Method for controlling godly powers by a human". Jesus, being an aspect of god himself, would not qualify as prior art here. Other miracles are, according to the mythology, not controlled by humans, but granted by god. You can only ask for it, not control it. So, no prior art there. Obviously, I would raise the objection that he can't disclose his method in a clear and unambiguous way that would allow the man skilled in the art to reproduce it. Then again, who is the man skilled in the art here? As an IP professional, I am starting to find this intriguing. Might be that I - just coming from a hearing - am still in bullshit overdrive, but still...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    3. Re:Prior art by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I mean, we're talking tens of thousands of years here.

      Only 7000, according to Rev. Camping.

      Looking at pictures of Camping, I would believe him. He looks like he was there!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:Prior art by teslafreak · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but of the many profoundly wrong preachers, his word is most recently wrong. Pick someone else.

    5. Re:prior art by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      But I was created not by godly power, but by my parents having sex.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:prior art by porl · · Score: 1

      ewww

  4. On year statutory bar by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If he says that he is Christ, then he's clearly publicly disclosed his "invention" 2000 years ago. The one year statutory bar prevents him from receiving a patent on this. Thus, the powers of Christ is in the public domain.

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    1. Re:On year statutory bar by just_another_sean · · Score: 2

      Thus, the powers of Christ is in the public domain.

      Amen!

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    2. Re:On year statutory bar by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If he says that he is Christ, then he's clearly publicly disclosed his "invention" 2000 years ago. The one year statutory bar prevents him from receiving a patent on this. Thus, the powers of Christ is in the public domain.

      Ah, but computers are relatively new, so using "Powers of Christ" "on a computer" will surely be patentable.

      I mean, gestures aren't patentable, unless you're using them on a computer, and math isn't patentable -- unless it's the instructions that make up software in a computer...

    3. Re:On year statutory bar by dcollins · · Score: 2

      "Thus, the powers of Christ is in the public domain."

      Also, they compel you.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    4. Re:On year statutory bar by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, because I haven't seen any religious person ever move. At least they're kinda immobile in their set of believes.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:On year statutory bar by alexo · · Score: 1

      Since GOD is everlasting, does this fall afoul of the ban on perpetual motion devices?

      Sadly, no. According to doctrine, god is also omnipresent, thus no motion takes place.

    6. Re:On year statutory bar by PoolOfThought · · Score: 1

      To be correct there is no ban on perpetual motion devices being patented. There is simply a requirement that any patent on a perpetual motion device have a working prototype available. No other type of invention has this requirement.

      --
      My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
    7. Re:On year statutory bar by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      Oooh, we need to get "Laying on of hands on a touchscreen mobile device with a screen over 3.0 inches, to heal people remotely over a wireless network" here on Slashdot, in public domain now, so that we have reference to prior art.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    8. Re:On year statutory bar by geekmux · · Score: 1

      ...Ah, but computers are relatively new, so using "Powers of Christ" "on a computer" will surely be patentable.

      Careful. Chances are they'll be copyright infringement if he's running Windows. I mean c'mon, I can't be the only guy praying to the almighty that my Windows server restarts OK after every patch Tuesday. And it's practically a miracle to find one running without a virus or malware on it...Divine intervention indeed.

    9. Re:On year statutory bar by madhatter256 · · Score: 1

      Implying Christ is our Lord and Savior.. Don't forget Abraham, Moses and blessed he is Mohammud.

      --
      Previewing comments are for sissies!
    10. Re:On year statutory bar by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      No, Windows is a manifestation of the powers of Satan. The appellant is only filing to patent the Powers of Christ. And given that Christian material is always distributed freely, even in every hotel room across the world, one can only assume that the Powers of Christ will be included with future Linux distributions following the doctrines of the open patent movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_patent).

    11. Re:On year statutory bar by teslafreak · · Score: 1

      Its Okay, everyone already knows computers are soul-less monsters. Christ has no place in them.

    12. Re:On year statutory bar by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      If he says that he is Christ, then he's clearly publicly disclosed his "invention" 2000 years ago. The one year statutory bar prevents him from receiving a patent on this. Thus, the powers of Christ is in the public domain.

      Ah, but computers are relatively new, so using "Powers of Christ" "on a computer" will surely be patentable.

      Powers of Christ have been around for 2000 years. Computers have been around for 40. The combination is obvious under 35 USC 103.

      (It's okay, I know your "on a computer" comment was either a joke or an indicator that you don't know what you're talking about)

      I mean, gestures aren't patentable, unless you're using them on a computer, and math isn't patentable -- unless it's the instructions that make up software in a computer...

      In re Warmerdam. Next question?

    13. Re:On year statutory bar by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, computers used to be monsters taking up entire buildings, but these days most computers are cute and cuddly little things. As to soulless, Tracy Kidder begs to differ.

    14. Re:On year statutory bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes Brother

      I use the powers God gave to me freely, when I accepted Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

      And this guy can patent all the powers he want's but My God gave them to him, and the guy will block them by getting into lawsuits and other stupid stuff.

      Anyways may God bless him and give him wisdom, because he Certainly needs it.

    15. Re:On year statutory bar by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If he says that he is Christ, then he's clearly publicly disclosed his "invention" 2000 years ago. The one year statutory bar prevents him from receiving a patent on this. Thus, the powers of Christ is in the public domain.

      OK, but all I have to do is add the words "on a smartphone" or "with a touch screen" and the prior art on my godly powers disappears.

      I'm off to the patent office.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    16. Re:On year statutory bar by dwarfsoft · · Score: 1

      Soul-less? But how will all the Calculators get to Silicon Heaven?

      --
      Cheers, Chris
  5. Why not? by second_coming · · Score: 2

    No sillier than all the recent gesture / software patent applications :)

    1. Re:Why not? by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 2

      I'm actually hoping he gets the patent - maybe then the rest of the country will start saying "wtf guys?"

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    2. Re:Why not? by ndavis · · Score: 1

      I agree it would show that the people in the USPTO have no idea how to research a patent. This is why some of the people I know in the patent office quit and why some worked till they were medically unable to (afraid patents would get through that have prior work or are unworkable).

    3. Re:Why not? by harrytuttle777 · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what beleaguered trial lawyers, hit hard by the recession need. In the past lawyers had to make due with suing major corporations and state entities for acts of human stupidity. Now they can friggin sue God. How great is that? Think of all the innocent flood victims who finally can be re-compensated for their deaths. Think of all the victims of cancer, who can finally be made right for having been given a compromised immune system. Yes sireee, this is the best think since lawn gnomes.

      -The writer of the post is a fagot, and doesn't know who to spel.

      -American Trial Lawyer association.

    4. Re:Why not? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      No sillier than all the recent gesture / software patent applications :)

      That's why this is potentially useful. If the USPTO treats this seriously, it can be used as an example of how far things have gotten out of hand.

    5. Re:Why not? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Why would a godlike being require patent protection?

  6. This is what we get by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when working models are no longer required. This and patent trolls.

    1. Re:This is what we get by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      when working models are no longer required. This and patent trolls.

      And small inventors working in their garages, and scientists designing new drugs through computer simulations without needing to first manufacture them, etc.

      Patent trolls have nothing to do with working models. Patent trolls usually buy applications after they're already filed, if not already granted and issued. You're confusing "working models" with the "working requirement" in some other countries. The latter is a requirement that the patent owner actually goes out and manufacturers or licenses the patented article, not a requirement that they demonstrate a working model to the patent office.

  7. Thought this was The Onion for a second .. by n5vb · · Score: 1

    .. still not quite sure, reading the article. :p

    1. Re:Thought this was The Onion for a second .. by synthparadox · · Score: 2

      I think the letter he wrote in reply to the non-final rejection was the most representative of this person's delusion. I reuploaded it at scribd for easy access: http://www.scribd.com/doc/57372518/USPTO-05-27-2008-Miscellaneous-Incoming-Letter

      As I read it, all I could think of is if you're god why do you need the patent office to enforce the sue of your abilities?

  8. Not patentable by janus01 · · Score: 1

    The New Testament is 2000 year old prior art. Jesus's powers are not patentable under (at least) 35 USC 102.

    This is not the USPTO's first trip to the crazypants rodeo.

    1. Re:Not patentable by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      IIRC there's nowhere in the NT or OT anything about how anyone produced a miracle. Describe how you deem it possible to do one (after all, you don't actually have to perform one, just describe how you would do it), and you're in.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Not patentable by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      Spit in the mud, wipe on the eyes, go rinse the eyes in that river over there... that sounded like a prescription of sorts to me. Another was to go wash in this other river, dipping one's self three times, and the unclean skin would become clean. Again, this sounds like step by step instructions for healing / miracles to me.

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
  9. Well there goes all the by kiehlster · · Score: 1

    dooms day predictions for the next 30 years. The real Christ won't be able to use his Godly powers until the patent runs out or until he pays a license fee. So unless he's planning a rapture sometime soon, I guess we can relax until the end of epoch time.

  10. Second Cominngs by Philbert+de+Zwart · · Score: 2

    It's clearly a cunning move to discourage competing second comings of other Jesuses Christs.

  11. What next? by Dyinobal · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's next some guy tries to patent his sexual technique so he can troll porn companies by sueing them when they use it?

    1. Re:What next? by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's not bad! Thanks for the tip!

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    2. Re:What next? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      It would be one of the few legitimate excuses to submit a schematic drawing of your genitalia to a government office...

      On the other hand, matters could get rather humiliating when the porn industry comes to trial and argues that "the 'apparatus' covered by claimant's patent is clearly of such dimensional disparity with the apparatus in common industry use that the applicable methods cannot be judged to be sufficiently similar to be infringing..."

    3. Re:What next? by maroberts · · Score: 1

      But the claimant could say he was a person having ordinary skill in the art... :-)

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    4. Re:What next? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Whatever it is, Ron Jeremy has prior art.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    5. Re:What next? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And since you don't even have to produce a working model anymore, even us geeks here can come up with one that we developed on one of the various sex-IRC chats ... erh... that I heard existed...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:What next? by habig · · Score: 1

      It would be one of the few legitimate excuses to submit a schematic drawing of your genitalia to a government office...

      Sounds like a great way to get congressional support, seems at least several congresscritters would love to do this.

    7. Re:What next? by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 1

      I think Jerry Seinfeld already patented "the move"

      --
      My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
  12. Lots of prior art? by stephathome · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking there's lots of prior art on this one. How else would there be terms such as "godly powers?"

  13. What about MY godly powers? by Progman3K · · Score: 2

    I permit the sun to rise every morning but you don't see me trying to patent it, jerk.

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    1. Re:What about MY godly powers? by Combatso · · Score: 1

      Chuck Norris has that patent, it asks his permision daily

    2. Re:What about MY godly powers? by Progman3K · · Score: 1

      Gotta love Slashdot, someone is always knowledgeable enough to find the corner-case

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  14. sweet by jswigart · · Score: 1

    Screw prior art, finally a "useful, concrete, and tangible result" demonstration

  15. No can do, Sonny Jim. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole point of a patent is disclosure in exchange for a monopoly of limited term. Since it has been repeatedly emphasized that God works in mysterious ways to which mortals are not privy, clearly the apparatus and method in question have not been adequately disclosed to the copyright office.

    Arguably, since God has retained these powers as a closely held Mystery, licenced only on a limited basis to his fertilitity and translation services provider subsidiary, Holy Spirit LLC, and a number of middle-eastern contractors to which he has outsourced prophetic work over the years, Godly power would be better served by Trade Secret, rather than Patent, protection...

    1. Re:No can do, Sonny Jim. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And this is exactly why we need patents! If God could have patented his powers, there would not have been the need to keep the inner working secret and by now the patent could have run out... wait, what? Lifetime of the inventor plus 70 years? So? When did the old geezer die? Uh? God is WHAT? What is he, a corporation?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:No can do, Sonny Jim. by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      The whole point of a patent is disclosure in exchange for a monopoly of limited term. Since it has been repeatedly emphasized that God works in mysterious ways to which mortals are not privy, clearly the apparatus and method in question have not been adequately disclosed to the copyright office.

      It's in the rejection:

      3/17/08- Non-Final Rejection, page 7 of PDF- “The specification has not described how one of ordinary skill in the art could make or use the claimed godly powers.”

    3. Re:No can do, Sonny Jim. by npsimons · · Score: 1

      Lifetime of the inventor plus 70 years? So? When did the old geezer die? Uh? God is WHAT? What is he, a corporation?

      Haven't you heard? God has been dead since at least 1882 (if he ever existed).

  16. Right on buddy! by Smigh · · Score: 1

    Good for him. I wouldn't want anyone else using godly powers if I came up with them. They better grant the patent too or they might get smitted!

    I'm patenting satanic powers right now!

  17. Final Rejection by maroberts · · Score: 1

    If the claimant truly possessed the powers which he claimed, there would be no need for him to delegate protection of his rights to those Powers to the Patent Office. Combined with omniscience which would allow the claimant to know when his rights were being infringed, a large thunderbolt would be an effective enforcement method, and much quicker than the courts of then Eastern District of Texas,

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Final Rejection by Combatso · · Score: 1

      Chuck Norris holds the patents on thunderbolts..

  18. To quote Jack Arnold Alexander Tancred Gurney by magusxxx · · Score: 2

    "How do you know you're God?" - "Because when I pray I find I'm talking to myself."

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  19. And I wouldn't even be surprised by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't even be surprised if the patent was awarded.

  20. Why does God need a starship? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    What does a person with godly powers need a government-granted monopoly?

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Why does God need a starship? by Zephyr14z · · Score: 1

      I dunno, but see: every theocracy in history for clues.

    2. Re:Why does God need a starship? by teslafreak · · Score: 1

      It's all about spreading the word. Advertising costs. Of course if you were God, you could simply change the billboards without paying for someone to do it.

  21. I've seen it before by Peristaltic · · Score: 1

    Fucking system admins.

  22. Disclosure by mooingyak · · Score: 2

    As part of the patent application, doesn't he need to disclose how others can acquire godly powers?

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    1. Re:Disclosure by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Quoth the final rejection: "The specification has not described how one of ordinary skill in the art could make or use the claimed godly powers."

    2. Re:Disclosure by Bobartig · · Score: 1

      He needs to describe with sufficient detail how one of ordinary skill in the art can practice godly powers.

      But what is "one of ordinary skill", and what "art" is this? Is it the art of being godly? One must be practiced in the art to say that it is not enabled.

      Personally I would have gone with non-patentable subject matter under Chakrabarty, since "godly powers" are by definition not "made by man."

      --
      This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
  23. Wait, here's a better idea: by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Have someone patent the process by which you protest at the funeral of U.S. soldiers, and trademark phrases like "God hates fags". Then when it's all granted, sue the living fuck out of WBT.
    I'm only half kidding, and I'm sure as hell not trolling. It would be completely outrageous, but it would also be so chock full 'o WIN that I think I would just burst.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Wait, here's a better idea: by Combatso · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling the result would be the patent holder getting a royalty check out of every god Hates Fags sign made... and it would be business as usual for the WBT

  24. Not a "machine" by david.emery · · Score: 1

    Just a tool....

  25. This guy is a genius by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

    I'm all for it! Basically, he's arguing that if software patents are valid, then his patents must also be valid. It probably won't be granted (but who knows these days?), but anything that highlights exactly how idiotic software patents really are. Think of his as the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Bilski. Go, crazy dude! Rock on, useful idiot!

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:This guy is a genius by geekmux · · Score: 1

      I'm all for it! Basically, he's arguing that if software patents are valid, then his patents must also be valid. It probably won't be granted (but who knows these days?), but anything that highlights exactly how idiotic software patents really are. Think of his as the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Bilski. Go, crazy dude! Rock on, useful idiot!

      I'm curious, which does it highlight more? The nonsensical musings of the USPTO, or the nonsensical musings contained within a book that speaks of an all-knowing divine entity that created the earth and the heavens, represented on earth by one man born from a virgin who later died and was resurrected...Hmmmm...

  26. 2000 year old prior art by SlithyMagister · · Score: 1

    Maybe even older
    Doubt that the originators of the prior art will oppose the patent in person, but if I was this dude, I would not be messing about with the originators of the Godly Powers.

  27. A True American Religion by sorak · · Score: 1

    From TFA, it seems like he is patenting the business model used to exploit such powers almost as much as the powers itself.

    Of course, maybe I am misunderstanding it. The mix of law, religion, business, and plain-old-fashioned crazy is giving this a cthulu-like quality.

  28. Re:Adams would've had a field day by alexborges · · Score: 1

    If we know anything at all, is that patent trolls have a +100 defense against logic.

    --
    NO SIG
  29. Re:God has a wicked sense of humor :) by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I'm quite convinced God found atheists incredibly funny. If he existed.

    I deduce from me, being an atheist, finding the idea of a God hilarious.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  30. Approved by haydensdaddy · · Score: 1

    I would wager any amount of soylent green that it is approved

  31. What about patenting super powers? by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    I can read the minds of earthworms. Surely, I can make a few bucks off that.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  32. Catholic Church and P2P by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

    My understanding is that the papists have a lock on the use of P2P protocols and this art.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  33. In my opinion by applematt84 · · Score: 1

    ... He isn't Christ. If he was, he wouldn't be so concerned with "patenting his powers". If he were Chris, he would be determined to share them with the world, not show that he's an idiot and try to make money off of something that obviously isn't true.

    1. Re:In my opinion by Cogita · · Score: 1

      ... He isn't Christ. If he was, he wouldn't be so concerned with "patenting his powers". If he were Chris, he would be determined to share them with the world, not show that he's an idiot and try to make money off of something that obviously isn't true.

      "Chris" Sounds like he's a cool Dude.

      --
      -- "The Price of Freedom of Speech, of Press, or of Religion is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish."
    2. Re:In my opinion by applematt84 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I get for not taking advantage of the "Preview" button and proofing my post before hitting Submit. I meant to say "Christ", which I'm sure you were fully aware of. ;)

  34. Objection -- sufficient disclosure? by coats · · Score: 2
    But patent law requires sufficient disclosure for the patented invention to be duplicated by one with only normal skills in the subject area.

    I strongly doubt he does this :-)

    --
    "My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
    1. Re:Objection -- sufficient disclosure? by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's just because you have considerably less than the ordinary skills of a deity (no offense intended :-). For all we know it makes perfect sense to Thor.

  35. Patents are tools of the Devil. by archer,+the · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't he be abolishing them, not promoting them?

  36. Already abandoned by Macblaster · · Score: 1

    This went abandoned several years ago (failure to properly respond to a Final Office Action). If only God used his infinite powers to make persuasive arguments.

    Frankly, I'm dissapointed that the PTO took his money. He clearly needs psychological help, and even small entity fees add up.

  37. Doh! I meant Old Testament! by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

    When I said I'm leery of doing that with the New Testament, I meant to type Old Testament. New Testament has four concurrent stories of the Gospel that can be read in parallel. Old Testament has stories and accounts that are hundreds, if not thousands, of years apart.

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    1. Re:Doh! I meant Old Testament! by hierofalcon · · Score: 1

      The interpretation I provided came from notes in a study Bible I have. I don't wish to provide the name as I don't want to be accused of promoting commercial interests. I suspect that searching via Google would provide a reference although I haven't checked. Certainly searching for some of the Hebrew phrases will give you many pages of information about that debate both pro and con. You can study them or read the Bible and form your own judgments. I've never bothered to look for sources of ecclesiastical authority to back up the study notes of that Bible - the extensive commentary on Gen. 1 simply seemed to resonate true to me and were immaterial as far as the overall purpose of the Bible were concerned - leading men back to Christ. If a particular interpretation improves my understanding of the Bible and lines up better with what I see around me, then I accept it until someone clearly shows how it is incorrect and provides a better explanation of the passages involved. I haven't had anyone do that for Gen. 1 yet.

      The King of Tyre passage is a dual reference to both a literal king of Tyre and Lucifer. There are portions of the passage which could not apply to any human king. That doesn't mean it is translated improperly - just that it's a passage that has an immediate literal meaning that applied to that specific king, and a second deeper meaning.

      As far as studying OT/NT passages in parallel - I guess you either trust the ultimate Author of the book or you don't. If you do, then you can rest assured that barring minor human goofs here and there due to decaying source documents that were used as the originals for modern translations or minor errors that have occurred in particular versions from time to time due to human mistakes, the time frame being covered really is not material and there is nothing to be leery of. If God gave Jeremiah a vision of a destroyed Earth, it could just as easily have been pre-Adam as Noah. Jeremiah doesn't identify his vision as that of Noah. Both times of destruction were certainly before his time. You simply trust that his recording of that vision was true. So if the description doesn't fit Noah's flood, it is incumbent on us to figure out what it is describing.

      The whole Bible should have an overall consistency from cover to cover and I believe that as originally given was correct or inerrant. Sometimes, as in Revelation, it may be hard to interpret what might constitute a valid interpretation of that prophecy since it hasn't happened yet, but I suspect that once it has happened you will be able to look back and see how a writer 2,000 years ago might have used those words to describe his vision to us. It is up to each reader to interpret the Bible with whatever resources they can find in the best way they can that makes sense to them. Just don't waste so much time analyzing the corner cases that you miss the important bits that are consistently interpreted across all Christian denominations and groups and are what are really important in His word. This is directed more to other readers who might come across this thread than you.

      If you don't trust the ultimate Author, then arguing about what something might mean is pointless.

    2. Re:Doh! I meant Old Testament! by Xaedalus · · Score: 2

      As much as I'd love to throw down with you on this, I am reminded about the passage of casting stumbling stones into someone else's path. I don't want to do that to you, because no good would come of it. So let's just conclude this. I respect your belief, and your strength of conviction in coming onto /. with your beliefs. You believe in biblical inerrancy, while I do not (I believe in biblical ineffability, which is a far stranger beast). I wish you well.

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    3. Re:Doh! I meant Old Testament! by metallurge · · Score: 1

      Actually, the OT does have significant overlap as well. It's a worthwhile thing to draw up a timeline for yourself, and place the various OT accounts onto that timeline.

      Of course, the scope of the OT's events is certainly much greater, I'll grant you that. But you might be surprised to see how much certain time periods are paid attention to, or that certain accounts overlap (or partially/nearly so).

      Also, regarding authority, the most generally useful and accessible resource for figuring this sort of stuff out for yourself that I am aware of is the "Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture" series. Basically, for each passage of the Bible, the scholars gather together whatever early church figures may have had to say about that passage, in the context of a sermon or writing or whatever. I have found this series books well-informed, and pretty much unbiased, yet reasonably accessible to ordinary people as well. I don't know what they have to say about these passages/issues; my copies are a couple thousand miles away at present. But what they say would be external evidence of a potential mistranslation (or not!) You'd also have Jewish Hebrew manuscripts available, which would presumably be free from potential Christian translational bias. :-) And, of course, there was a widely-used preChristian translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, so you actually have an additional class of evidence to consider.

      As a related aside, it must also be noted that Mormon (LDS) interpretation of the Bible is certainly not orthodox Christian. This is probably due to the origins of this sect in the early 1800s, and its claim to independent revelation. In other words, Mormons-LDS folks are not reading from the same set of facts/documents/materials/history/revelation as the majority of Christians. I personally would argue that Mormon-LDS theology is sufficiently different from mainstream Orthodox-Catholic-Protestant Christianity as to be, in its essence, a new and fundamentally *different* thing, which no more deserves to be lumped in with Christianity than Islam does. Despite sharing certain commonalities, Christianity and Mormon-LDS are fundamentally, distinctively different ways of understanding who God is, and who Jesus is.

      Peace.

  38. Re:Muhahahah by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    If you patent that and then sue anybody who uses the patented method, and then no women will get orgasms..... you are in a world of trouble. Imagine 50% of population hunting your down to kill you and eat your eyes out. Now imagine they are all unsatisfied women. You don't want them to catch you, your best defense will be to kill yourself and then eat your own eyes out.

  39. Honestly, pretty sad... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
    Read the claims... They aren't patent claims. They look more like a statement of facts and claims in a civil suit:

    What is claimed is: 1. Godly powers are being used on planet Earth. For example, technology (i.e. Electronic and Medical) is being assisted by godly powers throughout the planet. Godly powers could be used prior, during, and after godly product/procedure. For example; Before—in the making of a device, like a micro-processor chip. During—in the operation of a device, like an inkjet printer cartridge. Afterwards—like gradual scar removal from breast implant surgery. A magician might perform magic before, during, and after, for any given trick (“illusion”). 2. There is a plan governing our existence and actions—God's plan. 3. Christopher Anthony Roller is the godly entity powering Earth with godly powers as stated in claim 1. 4. From claim 2, God's plan (or Game of Life) puts restrictions on what can currently be done with godly powers, or even if/when. 5. From claims 2 and 4, there are restrictions on what magic (godly powers) can be in Chris Roller's presence—what Chris Roller can actually witness, which can differ from what everyone else can witness (in claim 4). Also, the magic needs to have a plausible explanation for its end product, like magicians calling their magic “illusions” or “tricks”. 6. From claim 1, godly powers can be transferred once a grantor—a grantee. A grantee can be a grantor only if granted the right, and only a subset of the rights a grantor possesses. 7. From claim 1 and 6, some grantees may be using their powers without morals. 8. Claim 1 is proved via David Copperfield, who has been using godly powers for his financial gain (MN Federal case 05-446JRT/FLN) and hiding knowledge of godly powers as stated in claim 7. 9. From claim 1, there are many phenomenons associated with godly powers—most of them discussed on www.mytrumanshow.com. 10. From claims 5 and 9, anything Chris Roller finds out is fact (information from all senses except psychic/imagination—i.e. global information via television from eyes and ears) becomes a state of reality on planet Earth. 11. In association with claims 7 and 9, will-power can be cast on another to control people's fate. 12. From claims 2, 5, and 9, reality can be restructured. Chris sometimes calls this re-ravel. Magic completely countered/reversed is called unravel. 13. From claim 12, information via psychic/imagination (not real yet) (non-eyes/ears) can be reversed/re-raveled/unraveled. 14. From claim 12, 5, and 10, unravel/re-ravel can only be done before Chris Roller gets the “real” news, and almost entirely governed by God's plan as stated in claim 2. 15. Immoral activity from claim 7 can be covered up with reality restructuring mentioned in claim 12.

    So, he obviously filed this pro se, never really having seen a patent application before (his response to the Office Action uses the term "plaintiff" even, and applicants are not plaintiffs). The guy is clearly insane, and he's already spent a thousand bucks in filing fees. While we can laugh about the application (and it is pretty amusing), it's also a clearly pretty awful story.

  40. Also, old news and since abandoned by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

    This application was finally rejected back in August 2008 and abandoned on May 19, 2009... more than 2 years ago.

  41. That means anyone who recieved "GODLIKE" by bodland · · Score: 1

    In Wolfenstein ET has to pay a licensing fee....

  42. Two words : by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    prior art

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:Two words : by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Actually, wrong. I looked it up by now, and it has been finally rejected. The examiner chose the right reason, btw - and it is not prior art, because, obviously, there is none. The rejection was due to insufficient disclosure - not enough information for the man skilled in the art to reproduce the claimed effects.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    2. Re:Two words : by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      Unless they interview him personally to see if he can himself reproduce the claimed effects, isn't the obvious response to that simply that no one else is "skilled in the art" of being the godhead? At least not anyone willing to answer a summons?

  43. Application was going nowhere after Bilski by sealawyer2003 · · Score: 1

    You cannot rely on State Street friendly arguments anymore. This patent application is DOA.

  44. I'm Quite Alarmed By This by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    I think we should write our congresspeople asking why the government is not attempting to regulate his godlike powers! Obviously they could be quite harmful if they fall into the wrong hands!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  45. He wants to patent it because... by boniggy · · Score: 1

    Hes filed a lawsuit against David Copperfield for basically infringing on his "powers" http://www.stellaawards.com/cases/copperfield-response.pdf what a moron.

  46. Does this mean... by Polo · · Score: 1

    That insurance companies can now insure us for "acts of god" and then go after him for payment after a disaster?