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."

The Future is Almost Here

[dsginter]

I can see a point where the United States becomes a lawsuit-based economy: instead of producing actual stuff, we'll all just patent stuff like email on a cell phone (who would have thought of that otherwise?).

The lawyers will obviously need to eat and get haircuts, so the money will eventually trickle down into the hands of the middle class.

I'm a genius - off to the patent office to patent this idea! I can't wait for my first royalty check.

Re:The Future is Almost Here

[Skrynesaver]

You jest, but we currently have US lobbyists acting for US companies in the EU attempting to remove the concept of independent open standards from Europe's ICT policy framework, so that all attempts at interoperation will result in a payment to someone. Any notion of a commons is clearly anathema to some companies and cultures.

Take a look at this article in the Linux Journal [linuxjournal.com]

not a machine

[tverbeek]

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.

companies are like snowflakes

[Speare]

If a company is a physical thing, an apparatus, then it is constructed in large part by the people who staff it. All people are unique, and any permutation of a group of people forms a unique subculture. The team either gels or it doesn't, in a unique pattern of ways. Real patents document how to reproduce the results, and anyone is free to try, once the sanctioned monopoly rights have expired. Therefore, a company does not need patent protection, as it will be impossible to reproduce the same mechanism.

Re:The Future is Almost Here

[furby076]

I can see a point where the United States becomes a lawsuit-based economy: instead of producing actual stuff, we'll all just patent stuff like email on a cell phone (who would have thought of that otherwise?).

The tv show Sliders was a flop, let's not rehash one of their episode starters.

Marketing stunt.

[Samschnooks]

I have a hunch: I don't think he really wants the patent to use it. I think he wants to get this patent to prove that he's a god among patent attorneys and all those firm that want patents or to sue for patents will hire him and his firm.

Then again, he may actually want the patent so he can hire other lawyers to sue on his behalf so that then, he can sit home, watch his DVD collection of Boston Legal, sip Scotch, and wish that he was hooked up with such hot women as Alan Shore has.