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.'"

25 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 hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. 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.
    3. 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!

  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 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.

  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.

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

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

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

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

  8. 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 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..."

  9. 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
  10. 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...

  11. 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?

  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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?
  15. 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!"
  16. 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.