Slashdot Log In
USPTO Issues Provisional Storyline Patent
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:28 PM
from the thought-of-that-first dept.
from the thought-of-that-first dept.
cheesedog writes "The USPTO will issue the first storyline patent in history today, with two others following in the next few months. Right to Create points out that this was anticipated several months ago in a story by Richard Stallman published in the The Guardian, UK. With the publication of this not-yet-granted patent, its author can begin requiring licensing fees for anyone whose activities might fall within its claims, including book authors, movie studies, television studios and broadcasters, etc. The claims appear to cover the literary elements of a story involving an ambitious high school student who applies for entrance to MIT and prays to remain sleeping until the acceptance letter comes, which doesn't happen for another 30 years."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
USPTO Broken (Score:5, Funny)
USPTO: Ooh, good idea!
Seriously, the US patent system is very broken, and it appears they are moving in a direction to expand, rather than contract, the amount of things that are patentable. They clearly have no care for whether the patents they grant are stifling innovation. Action is needed to reverse this, but I doubt we'll see it while Bush is still in power.
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a Bush fan in the slightest, but I don't see it being the kind of thing a Democrat president would give a crap about, either. Whoever is president when some ridiculously hyped movie gets its opening delayed by litigation will be the president to fight it.
Parent
Blame the voters. (Score:5, Funny)
>> see it while Bush is still in power.
>
> I'm not a Bush fan in the slightest, but I don't see it
> being the kind of thing a Democrat president would give
> a crap about, either.
So long, and thanks for all the fish — Douglas Adams:
Parent
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm going to go back to Jonathan Swift here, in Gulliver's Travels. He claimed that the Yahoos, who were these little dirty, simian versions of humans with no intellect and nothing but greed, hatred, disease and guile, had lawyers. One yahoo found a shiny rock. Another yahoo came and tried to take it away from him. Struggle insues. 3rd yahoo comes in and takes it away from both of them (that's the lawyer).
Swift would've positively loved this one.
But anyway, I have to get in a cursory rant about what an apocalyptic crime this is. Feel free to ignore it, i'm sure it'll just be repeated several thousand times over. Now, it's not the fact that a patent may or may not be valid (i.e., conforming to the rules of a sadistic, flawed game), it's the fact that still more needless litigation is being introduced into a system that is already frought with friction. That friction favors the powers that be and makes sure that nothing truly creative ever happens again in the United States. If this shit is allowed to continue, you will never see another dirt-poor writer making it to fame, or another hacker in a basement cooking up the next revolution in technology.
Parent
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, that's a weird idea, but it seems to me that they're basically forcing the government to deal with the problem. Surely any halfway intelligent person can see that this system just isn't working
Parent
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:5, Insightful)
Very insightful.
Parent
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is going to start banning books
I wonder how they're going to dispose of confiscated books, hmm? Perhaps burning them would be an efficient and effective way to destroy them.
Yes, of course, the US must confiscate and burn all banned books! Because this is what capitalistic democracies do to protect their citizens.
How many rights does a democracy have to curtail or eliminate before it ceases to be a democracy?
Think I'm overreacting? Then think of all the rediculous things that software patents have allowed and then apply that to BOOKS.
Parent
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:4, Funny)
No my friend, not even porn is safe from these fiends.
Parent
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a second... Since when does democracy (or majority rule, or representative rule) imply individual rights?
Democracy is simply the modern justification for power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end). Democracy does not, in any way, remove the element of power from government. 500 years ago, rulers justified themselves by claiming they were following god's orders. Today, rulers justify themselves by claiming they are following the majority's orders. Even when they are, does it really justify coercion? Don't be afraid to ask that question.
Democracy is still government, and government is still founded on the principle of coercion. Democracy, monarchy, republic, tyranny... the core principle of any government is identical. Government is defined by its unique "right" to initiate force as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal. How they achieved that "right" is simply irrelevant to the definition of government.
Democracy is not immune to oppression. It is still impossible to curtail power. If power could be contained, then it wouldn't be power, would it? How can the "right" to initiate force possibly be contained? Only by eliminating it -- and that is not going to happen any time soon.
Personally, I say the type of government doesn't matter worth a damn; what matters is the level of respect a government has for individual freedom. If a society is more free living under the rule of a monarchy than the rule of a democracy, then I say the monarchy is more ethical and just, and you're damn right I'd rather live there.
Parent
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:5, Funny)
Oh puhleeese. These bozos (the USPTO) couldn't find prior art if somebody filed a patent for fire fer chrissake.
Parent
Hey ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hey ... (Score:4, Funny)
Haven't these guys ever heard of reinventing the wheel? Sheesh.
Parent
Re:USPTO Broken (Score:4, Insightful)
First of all lets clairify what a provisional patent is... It's not a patent and does not hold the same teeth as a patent does. Simply put, it gives you the right to put Patent Pending on some technology that you are developing. In addition, if you apply for a patent in a years time from time of the filing of the provisional patent, the effective date of the patent (assuming it's approved... not all patents are) is the date of provisional patent filing. Oh, the date of provisional patent filing is the date you drop it off at the post office and send it via registered mail.
So, today you could write up a provisional patent document (not as formal as an actual patent application but it helps to keep it formal if you are going after the patent), enclose a check for $100.00 if you are an individual, send it via registered mail (not fedex, ups, but usps) and BAM, Patent Pending.
It doesn't mean you are going to get the patent. It's meant for smaller inventors to potentially apply for patents and decide if they want to invest the $10,000 it typically takes to possibly get a patent. The gives you protection of prior art no matter what so some company can't patent the technology even if you decide not to pursue a patent (as the provisional patent application counts as prior art and assuming the technology is "new and novel"). If you do decide to pursue a patent the effective date of the patent is the date you sent it via registered mail.
Parent
Reality TV (Score:5, Funny)
Wait no, this wont work. You need to have a story to be able to patent it. Soon all that will be on the air is reality TV. Noooo!
I've got a storyline patent too. (Score:5, Funny)
Claim 2: a communication process according to claim 1, wherein said character subsequently goes to his bedroom, where he keeps a loaded Glock 32C, and racks the slide.
Claim 3: a communication process according to claims 1 and 2, wherein said character subsequently flies to DC and unloads his plastic fantasic on an unsuspecting USPTO in a singlular act of biblical fury.
Claim 4: a communication process according to claims 1 2, and 3, wherein said character subsequently returns to his hometown and has a slurpy, cosmic justice being served.
You aint seen nothing yet (Score:3, Interesting)
This is so fucking depressing. Do Australians have to honour this patent within Australia? Did the government fuck us over with a treaty that makes it so any of our work falls under this god-forsaken piece of shit?
Re:You aint seen nothing yet (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:You aint seen nothing yet (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a test case. If approved, there will be literally thousands of similar ones approved and used to harrass writers all over the world.
I found this on the asshole who is making the claim's website [plotpatents.com]:
So the same concept as submarine patents: don't create a sellable product, just patent the concept and wait to ambush someone who has the talent to think of it AND bring it to market. The main target will be movie studios I think -- already they have to fight off hacks who claim that someone read their script and stole the idea, now they'd be liable even if the "idea" was never shown to anyone or published.
Parent
But Is He Serious? (Score:5, Interesting)
The site is so absurb that it almost does count as some kind of anti-patent comic sketch.
Parent
Where am I... (Score:3, Funny)
Publish, not issue (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Publish, not issue (Score:5, Interesting)
And, sadly, it looks like this guy is serious. Looks like he's even set up a practice [plotpatents.com] to promote helping others get storyline patents.
Parent
They haven't issued anything (Score:5, Informative)
Patent these quickly! (Score:3, Insightful)
[wo]man vs. [wo]man
[wo]man vs. the environment
[wo]man vs. machines/technology
[wo]man vs. the supernatural
[wo]man vs. self
[wo]man vs. god/religion
That pretty much covers everything.
Re:Patent these quickly! (Score:5, Funny)
M
Parent
Re:Patent these quickly! (Score:4, Funny)
entity vs. circumstance(s)
entity vs. nonentity
Parent
Reductio ad Absurdum (Score:5, Informative)
The system is now officially broken, and anyone who takes the USPTO seriously after today is part of the problem.
Schwab
Followup (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the fact that the USPTO accepted the application at all merely reinforces my assertion: The USPTO is now officially broken.
Schwab
Re:Followup (Score:5, Funny)
You misspelt bribe. I corrected it in my quote for you.
Parent
Re:Reductio ad Absurdum (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the MPAA and RIAA will have to put those lawers to a good use for once.
Re:Reductio ad Absurdum (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? The MPAA will pee themselves with delight over this. They will support this wholeheartedly.
Analysis:
The issue of, "Who owns the story," is a thorny one in Hollywood. Professional screenwriters -- many of whom, by the way, are unionized because the studios kept abusing them way back when -- often retain the copyrights to their stories. Among other things, copyright affords the author the right to enjoin performance of their story in most media (since those are derivative works). However, copyright's scope is limited. You only have a case against a studio if the copying was direct. If the studio's work was substantially similar, then you get to sit in court for years and argue exactly how similar it was, and whether the studio's work A) constitutes plagiarism, and B) whether the degree of plagiarism is sufficient to warrant punishment by the courts. See Buchwald vs. Paramount [wikipedia.org] for an example of how messy this can get.
Further, if a writer feels that s/he's being maltreated by the studios, s/he can vote with their feet and simply choose to work for someone else under different, hopefully better conditions. (In practice, this is more difficult than I'm making it sound.)
However, if plotline elements can be patented, then there will be a mad rush by the studios to acquire as many patents as possible. Once done, screenwriters will no longer be able to ply their trade without being expressly licensed by the studio to do so. The balance of power will shift massively to the studios, who will wield absolute veto power over who may write screenplays, and under what circumstances. ("I want to retain rights to the story." "I'm sorry; we don't offer plot element licenses under those conditions.")
This will also effectively kill those pesky independent screenwriters and film studios, since the large studios will simply refuse to license the plot elements. (The large studios won't have any difficulty; they'll merely cross-license with each other.) The studios could also, if they so wished, break the screenwriters' union overnight.
And, of course, you'll hear a bunch of self-serving blathering about how film production is massively expensive, and successful film plots are already hard to come by, so successful plot elements should be afforded the maximum protection possible because, darn it, it was expensive to develop. This "reasoning" is, of course, complete bullshit, but it'll play well in the trade magazines and the halls of Congress.
Schwab
Parent
The Worst Part Is... (Score:3, Funny)
Not to mention the fact that Rip Van Winkle, King Arthur, and Sleeping Beauty are all prior art.
Hrm.
Sleeping Beauty?
Maybe the worst part is what Disney is going to do to this guy...
Impressive Prior Art Though... (Score:3, Interesting)
According to Joseph Campbell, nearly all good stories conform to a standard cycle (the name of which eludes me right now), making all heroic-type stories unpatentable.
Shame about originality though. And also a shame that if someone comes to sue you, you've got to go through a long process to prove that you weren't copying their stuff. The one with the biggest legal bill will probably win.
What was wrong with copyright anyway? All works of fiction are under copyright, and there are existing ways to deal with transgressions. Plagiarism is anethema to real authors, as well.
Palm Sunday. (Score:5, Interesting)
Whoever patents the five or six storylines that are the basis for virtually all books will become richer then Bill Gates.
The neat thing about this is that you don't have to actuall write the books yourself. The patent office punishes the people who get off their ass and do things while rewarding people who get in the patent line early and patent things they have never built or made.
Re:Palm Sunday. (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone is going to mod me up for saying this, then mod me down for being obvious, but read The Hero with a Thousand Faces [amazon.com]. It goes into painstaking detail about the idealized hero story, and yet the structure fits tons of popular and historical media such as Terminator 2, Heart of Darkness, Cowboy Bebop, Tarzan, Blade, Odysseus, the new testament in the Bible, etc, etc.
There are several other structures out there, and nearly infinite variants, but if you look at media with a critical eye you will find that all good films, books, shows, and games fall into set patterns of challenges, setbacks, losses, and eventual triumph (or not). If I may be so bold, most truly great pieces of media aren't made by artists, but by craftsmen. An artist explores their feelings as they create, producing something which is generally more intellectually engaging than emotionally so. A craftsman knows every tool of their trade, and hones their skills, tricks, and abilities towards controlling the viewer's reaction. Spielberg is a master craftsman. Vonnegut is a craftsman. Even in artistic pieces like Y Tu Mama Tambien, the craftsmanship is present and in the forefront.
I say this because too many people try to create media from the heart, without realizing that you really need to engage your head thoroughly in order to focus on how to effect the heart of your audience. These people are master magicians: they conjure up images and emotions using smoke and mirrors. And like master magicians, they have to know the routines, and know how to work the routines so that they don't seem like routines. Part of the magic is taking something that was slaved over for years, with every detail hashed out and revised in painstaking detail, and making it look completley natural and unintended.
But there is magic, there is structure. And if you want to become a magician, you need to give up the magic and learn how it is done.
Parent
Re:There are only seven original stories (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, what category does this fit into? Let's try all of them shall we?
Yah. What have we learn about categories?
Parent
Someone should patent porno movie plots (Score:4, Funny)
Knock knock!
Who is it?
Pizza Delivery!/Copier Repairman!/Pool Cleaner!
Bow-chicka-bow-bow
Patent Office is philosophically broke (Score:4, Informative)
Many of the not so credible patents have inate and self-evident common senses that have been documented by Greek/Roman historians in B.C. times!
This is not what us commoner had envision for our ideal patent system. Oh boy, Adam Smith must be hotly spinning in his grave!
--
Disclaimer - I, too, am a pending patent holder.
Hey America (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously fucked
What sickens me is your sickness is going to seep into Canada. I'll fight this one tooth and nail.
Really, at the risk of being redundant you are deeply badly fucked.
Marines (Score:5, Funny)
They have another reason to be ashamed... Not to mention their whole site looks like it was done in Front Page. Oh wait... It was
meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"
Good news! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it'll be the end of the Oscars as a bonus.
Parody? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about prior art? (Score:3, Insightful)
No way this gets past utility.
Re:Copy (Score:5, Informative)
A textbook wouldn't have a storyline so the answer could not be (a) or (c). However, whether you are violating (b) depends on whether the page you photocopied was from a textbook printed on paper or an electronic book which displays text encoded digitally. In the first case, the old and established Fair Use Act covers this and no violation has occured. In the second case, the DMCA comes into play and you would be subject to penalties on par with those for second degree murder.
Parent