Write Your Own Laws With Patents

Billy the Mountain writes "At Scientific American's website there's an short and interesting article describing how the lack of scrutiny in the patent department enables ordinary citizens to manipulate the system with the effect of writing new laws. (Meanwhile, I'm busy patenting taxation and will be unable to answer any emails this week. Oh, and you can thank me later! :)"

Comments?

[Gregg Alan]

Does no one care or is everyone reading the article first?

Re:Comments?

[JDWTopGuy]

I have patented posting comments to this article, and nobody's going to pay $40 a pop to karma whore.

BTW, you'll be hearing from my lawyers.

Re:Comments?

[Lionel Hutts]

There's another possible explanation: all of /.'s readers have suddenly become sophisticated legal analysts and realize that the article makes no sense.

We all realize that our present patent law is questionable from a policy standpoint. The possibility that an anti-abortion group might invent and patent an abortion method just to stop it from being used is a little troubling, but much less so (IMHO) than that Amazon can patent one-click checkout, or . So the article really isn't very convincing on the policy side.

From a legal standpoint, it's just plain silly. The only legal argument it suggests against this kind of patent is the nondelegation doctrine, which says that Congress cannot allocate to the President the power to make laws. The Supreme Court has invoked this doctrine very rarely and only in extreme cases where Congress has done just that. Note that there is generally no Constitutional problem with Congress granting to federal agencies the power to write regulations implementing laws, which have the full force of law, even where it gives only very slight guidance as to what those regulations should say. The patent system involves much less delegation than that. In fact, it really involves no more than when a private landowner is allowed to decide freely who can be on his land, by whatever criteria he chooses, and the Framers clearly had no problem with that.

In short, there are lots of problems with software, business method, and other new age patents. This is not one of the big ones.

Re:Comments?

[Lionel Hutts]

Ah, sorry about the gap there in the last line of the second paragraph: it was supposed to say "or <insert stupid patent of the week here>." Somebody must've went and patented the preview button on me.

Re:Comments?

[nerdlyone]

the article makes no sense.

Agreed.

We all realize that our present patent law is questionable from a policy standpoint.

Patent law is questionable from a policy standpoint? There are parts that need revising, as there always are with laws that deal with technology. Law rarely keeps up with technology, but to argue that patent law is questionable from a policy standpoint? Maybe you were referring to some specific part of the law?

One thing I have noticed in news articles about patents, they consistentl

Silence is underrated

[bill_mcgonigle]

This post is a great example of lots of people I've seen lately who just can't stand silence. Always has to be some kind of background noise going on, music going, a TV on even if nothing's being watched - what's the deal? I swear if I sat one down in a quiet room they'd start murmuring just to break the silence. I know the major media peddles noise, but it's really starting to affect people's personalities.

Re:Silence is underrated

[Gregg Alan]

...who just can't stand silence.

I'm sor... whoa!

...is a non-profit technology think-tank.

oh, I get it now.

Hopefully...

[mstorer3772]

...this sort of thing will lead to the current patent system getting a major overhaul.

I say we just throw in a coin-tosser. "Heads, granted!" It certainly would be more cost effictive! And it just might be an improvement. It would have a %50 chance of rejecting each and every software patent we at slashdot have come love so much.

In other news, several branches of the government don't function so well. What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" did you miss? Oy vey.

patents and copywrites

[slothman32]

How about we include in the limitation for IP that they must make money every month or they fall into the public domain. Then at least all those "prevention" patents and old copyrights will become public.

Re:patents and copywrites

[JessLeah]

I'm not sure that's such a hot idea. That would put even more pressure on the companies to pull Dirty Tricks(TM) to squash the free market (a la Microsoft) and/or cook the books (a la Enron)... It just seems to me like a rule like this would do little but encourage corruption. And that would be Bad(TM)... :/

Re:infringement of constitutional rights

[nerdlyone]

...Except that infringement of a patent is not a right guaranteed under the constitution or laws of the US. Also, "conspiring" is an inherently wrong act. For example, you can't "conspire" to legally enforce your rights. You can only "conspire" to commit a wrong, by definition.