Lawyer Sues To Get a Patent On Marketing

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Lawyer Scott Harris, one of the inventors of the concept of a 'marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits,' is appealing the USPTO's rejection of US Patent Application No. 09/387,823 which was intended to patent that 'invention.' This court action is important because it directly challenges the In Re Bilski ruling, which tightened the rules to get rid of most so-called 'business method' patents. One of Mr. Harris's legal theories is that a 'company is a physical thing, and as such analogous to a machine.' If the name seems familiar, it's because Mr. Harris has a long history of inventive legal maneuverings. I'm honestly surprised that SCO never tried to hire or sue him."

Actually, lost on appeal and bilksi upheld

[aaribaud]

Misleading title and summary. The main point is not that the lawyer sued and challenges in Re Bilski, but that he lost on Appeal and that in Re Bilski was ruled dispositive...
... as Groklaw's link mentions right from their own title. Now, that Slashdot readers don't RTFA is usual, but submitters? Sheesh. :)

Re:Wait...

[Theaetetus]

He appears to be trying to patent the concept of a marketing company or more specifically a software marketing company .... I suspect these already exist and have done for some time ....

Prior art is every software marketing company in existence ...forget if it can be patented due to it being a process, it has been around so long and is so obvious it cannot be patented

Irrelevant. Section 101 rejections come before 102 or 103 considerations.