Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Technology

PTO Eliminates "Technological Arts" Requirement 256

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the patent-pending dept.
MdntToker writes to tell us that the Patent Board has issued an opinion which removes the existing procedure of rejecting patents under 35 U.S.C. 101 as outside of the "technological arts". From the article: "Our determination is that there is currently no judicially recognized separate "technological arts" test to determine patent eligible subject matter under 101. We decline to create one. Therefore, it is apparent that the examiner's rejection can not be sustained."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PTO Eliminates "Technological Arts" Requirement More

PTO Eliminates "Technological Arts" Requirement

Comments Filter:

  • Geesh (Score:5, Funny)

    by quibbs0 ( 803278 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:26PM (#13811302)
    Who's going to jump on the patent that eliminates the process for processing the elimination of patent requirements?

  • Great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) <Satanicpuppy@nosPAm.gmail.com> on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:26PM (#13811308) Journal
    Time to go patent all my fiction writings, before someone else does it.

    This is the dumbest thing I've ever even imagined. Just when you think it cannot possibly get any worse.

    • burn the lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Brigadier ( 12956 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:48PM (#13811488)

      This is all because the people who make money from patents are patent lawyers. The more stuff out there that can be patented then litigated for patent infringment the better. I agree the patent office sucks ass, Ive been trying to patent something without the help of a lawyer which is next to imposibble and it's all because they have complicated things beyond comprehension. To what extent I have no idea.

  • THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:26PM (#13811309)
    I really have no idea what this means. And since I can't install linux on it, I'm gonna go back to surfing pr0n.

    • World greatest answer! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 9Nails ( 634052 )
      I submit the parent for the Worlds greatest answer prize. Not only is the parent dead on, but their answer reflects the kind of half-ass journalism that we've become accustomed to. A journalism in which the reader isn't expected to actually read the article. A journalism in which no question will be answered and where diagrams are appropriate, none will be provided. And... ahh screw it, nobody is really going to read this any way!

  • Profit! (Score:5, Funny)

    by amliebsch ( 724858 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:28PM (#13811316) Journal
    I think I'll patent the making of the "I have a patent on stupid patents" jokes that appear below.

  • As a kid, I wondered... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:28PM (#13811321) Homepage Journal
    ...how it was that wrestlers could have "patented moves."

    I guess now they actually can. :\
    • ...how it was that wrestlers could have "patented moves."

      And since we can now patent thing like that, I'm going to patent 'fucking', and become the richest person on the planet. Or, perhaps I'll refuse to issue licenses, and I'll be the only person on th planet that all the fine ladies can get down with....

      (Queue the bad porno music here)

  • This is an idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by cmdr_beeftaco ( 562067 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:30PM (#13811334)
    This is an idea I wish I had patented. Imagine patenting the concept of patents before there was such thing as patents. The royalties from the patent office alone would be enough to retire on.

    • How old are you? (Score:3, Informative)

      by jurt1235 ( 834677 )
      Patents exist since at least 1594 (earliest patents I know of), probably earlier. Your patent would be pretty much expired by now.
      Patents were invented to make people publish their inventions, protecting them for a short period of time, after that time everybody is free to use it. That probably worked in a slower paced world.
      • Patents exist since at least 1594 (earliest patents I know of), probably earlier. Your patent would be pretty much expired by now.
        Patents were invented to make people publish their inventions, protecting them for a short period of time, after that time everybody is free to use it. That probably worked in a slower paced world.

        The same concept used to apply to copyright, which would eventually fall into the public domain. Our governments seem hell-bent on making copyright perpetual. How soon until they star

  • This is a great step (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oliverthered ( 187439 ) <{moc.liamtoh} {ta} {derehtrevilo}> on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:33PM (#13811363) Journal
    ...In the direction of making patents completely and utterly useless.
    Now all they have to do is remove the prior art clauses and were in patent utopia.

    • Re:This is a great step (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:50PM (#13811501)
      Mod the parent up. As a system becomes ridiculous, it will be more and more ignored... the way people are already treating copyright.

      Copyright and the people who try to enforce copyright have become so comical that most normal people ignore it. They copy freely and to their hearts' content.

      "Surely that law only applies to criminals, and I'm no criminal!"

      "Oh, yes, it certainly does apply to you!" the RIAA says. "We'll sue you if you think differently."

      "You'll sue *everyone*?!"

      And thus the RIAA files thousands and thousands of lawsuits and haven't managed to dent any amount of infringement. It's ridiculous, and people are ignoring it.

      Now replace the RIAA with PTO in everything above. Pretty soon, people are going to start ignoring patents too.

      Monsato company better look out! How many Mexican share-croppers do you have time to arrest!
      • Patents are much worse though - they prevent life saving drugs from being cheaply manufactured, an act which directly acts to kill people. Copyright merely stops people from downloading useless and pointless crap like metallica mp3s and microsoft software that does not benefit the owner or humanity as a whole in any way.

        Patent fraud is also the least-prosecuted and yet most-damaging ( in an economic sense ) of all the so-called "Intellectual Property" crimes. The article several days ago here on /. about ho
        • Your comment about medicines is only a half-truth. Since medical research costs on the order of half a billion dollars minimum to research and test a new drug to approval, not only do patents slow the production of cheap drugs, they also cause the development of the drugs in the first place. And it's an important half of the truth you're missing, too, since most people would rather be able to spend a lot of money and send their mother's cancer into remission than have a dead mother smelling up the living
    • Now all they have to do is remove the prior art clauses and were in patent utopia.

      Unfortunately for you, you'll have to wait 14 years, or pay me royalties, because I am now gonna go patent the removal of prior art clauses from patent law!

  • Not Sure How Big this Really Is (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:33PM (#13811369) Journal
    I do not know how big a deal this really is. I am sure in software or business method arts there might be more of an issue at hand, but I do not think 35 USC 101 is a highly used rejection method within the office. I would also be surprised if this stood up outside the Board of Patent Appeals and Interference (BPAI). I believe this should be tasked to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) since it almost sounds like the BPAI is trying to limit the USC.

    I do not have numbers, but I am willing to take a guess the number of Business Method patents allowed to date is quite low. It is something that I believe should be more contested by the general public then the idea of software patents. I mean at least I'll see the end of a Patent term in my lifetime, but that same code that gets copyrighted won't be touchable until after a great many of us are long gone.

    • Re:Not Sure How Big this Really Is (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:39PM (#13811411) Journal
      The reason that the technological art standard does not come up much as a reason for rejection is that, generally, people whose invention didn't meet that standard wouldn't even bother filing a patent. Patent lawyers wouldn't waste their time.

      Now that this particular court has ruled differently, expect a rash of filings that would previously have been rejected under this clause.

    • Re:Not Sure How Big this Really I (Score:5, Informative)

      by mikael ( 484 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:40PM (#13811422)
      It's discussed in a bit more detail here [bakerbotts.com]. It looks like any business process can be patented, from plotting a basic graph on a whiteboard, to having TPS reports notched according to the future employment status of the employee.
    • Imagine you have a plot twist of a television program themes, now that they can be patented, you can expect those TV guys to apply for patents. Previously that wouldn't get past the door and so didn't try, now the court is saying they can apply.

      Same with photo compositions, painting themes, unusual musical chord twists, drawing styles, colour compositions...
      Note the limit on what is accepted as prior art, mean it will be next to impossible to refuse any patent request in any area now.

      "I do not have numbers,
      • I won't steal your thunder as many of the things you wrote of were the things that came to my mind when I read the links in this post and commentary. But since you beat me to the submit button, I'll post mine as a follow-up to yours.
        Three Act Story Structure Variants
        The long used outline of popular movies, genre fiction, and short stories. While the classic structure itself may not be patentable, variations from the "traditional" structure could be attempted. Someone patenting a science-fiction structure

  • Just what exactly is an abstract idea? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by starseeker ( 141897 ) * on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:34PM (#13811372) Homepage
    Reading the article, I'm made aware of two things: 1) I lack the training to be able to argue about this properly 2) I would like to know why exactly "a 'method of compensating a manager' that involved several steps of calculating a proper compensation based on performance criteria and then transferring payment to the manager" is not an abstract idea? What exactly does constitute an abstract idea? This sounds like a particular application of mathematical and economic principles, which I wouldn't have thought patentable at all. Anybody have a link to some reference materials that might help with these questions, without requiriring several years obtaining a law degree?
    • And more importantly, what great new method is this that isn't already covered by prior art or obviousness?

      • The Broken System (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kaladorn ( 514293 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @08:39PM (#13813685) Homepage Journal
        Your patent is supposed to not duplicate prior art and it is supposed to be non-obvious.

        Both of these criteria are criteria honoured in the work to register a patent in good faith (a search for prior art) and after the fact, by the fact your patent can be challenged.

        A lot of the most obvious patents will not be upheld if challenged and either meaningful prior art exists or if the patent actually *is* obvious. In the Litigious States of America, this mechanism for defeating patents should not be surprising.

        It is, however, expensive to register patents. It is also expensive to challenge them. This gives the leverage to the financially wealthy. It gives even more leverage to larger companies that don't do anything but patent registration and litigation - they don't spend any money inovating, just patenting other people's ideas and chasing down infringers. Usually this results in out of court settlements rather than challenges, since it could cost you $100K to challenge a patent, and $20K to license it from the current patent holder.

        We've created a system that has within it a built in niche for a group of butt-sucking parasites who do no actual work. I'm not talking about lawyers, but of patent attack/defense companies that don't *make* anything. They are just storehouses for intellectual property, not with the idea of protecting of the inventors or even their investors, but simply for profit. They act as leghold traps on innovation, rather than incentives.

        This is the surest sign that the system is broken. The patent system itself now has so many companies co-opted into the machine that they can't imagine life without it. And their fear keeps the system going strong and growing. And of course, as it grows, it stifles invention and innovation, instead of protecting it as it probably did way back when the patents were first envisioned.

        At one time, it did bring together investors and inventors because it helped ensure RoI for the investors, because anyone who knocked off their process or product could be litigated against and punished. Thus it fostered innovation.

        That day is long past. What we have left is the rotting carcass of a system that protected innovation, and the only creatures that enjoy hanging around rotting carcasses are maggots, flies, and carrion eaters. And that's what the Patent system has develoved to.

        Get rid of it, because it no longer serves the purpose it was meant for.
    • It's not considered by the court to be abstract because it results in a concrete, tangible result -- the transfer of money to the manager.

      Of course, I happen to believe that the transfer of compensation (especially if it's a bank transfer, not a cash transfer) is neither concrete nor tangible, but there are some accepted meanings of those words that could be stretched to fit the situation... which apparently this court has.

  • The Future of America (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JemalCole ( 222845 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:35PM (#13811384) Homepage
    So now they aren't even going to be limiting patents to software and "business methods"? In another 5 years we're all going to have to pay license fees to take a crap without being sued for violating a patent for "method of voiding bowels into a porcelain fixture while seated."

    But that won't be the end of it: microphones in the toilet will be listening to make sure it doesn't sound like the tune to some Britney Spears song, while cameras examine the shape of the turds to see if they resemble a corporate logo. I can't wait to see which company owns the rights to each particular method for wiping your ass.
    • I, for one, welcome our new ass-wiping overloads.
    • So now they aren't even going to be limiting patents to software and "business methods"? In another 5 years we're all going to have to pay license fees to take a crap without being sued for violating a patent for "method of voiding bowels into a porcelain fixture while seated."

      Nah... it won't really be bad until Amazon patents their "1-click" method for taking a dump...

    • "But that won't be the end of it: microphones in the toilet will be listening to make sure it doesn't sound like the tune to some Britney Spears song, while cameras examine the shape of the turds to see if they resemble a corporate logo. I can't wait to see which company owns the rights to each particular method for wiping your ass."

      No, no, no... FTA:

      "[the patented process must] 'produce a useful, concrete, tangible result' without being a 'law of nature, physical phenomenon or abstract idea.'"

      My cra
      • My craps are rarely like concrete, and are often regarded by my wife to be physical phenomena. So not patentable on two accounts.

        Well, mine often are like concrete and at the least are quite tangible. Not to mention the event more closely resemble a spiritual phenomena (including much speaking in tongues and biblical references).So that means that at least mine are patentable!

        Gotta go. Prune juice just kicked in.
    • microphones in the toilet will be listening to make sure it doesn't sound like the tune to some Britney Spears song

      But most peoples' time on the throne sounds a lot better than any song Britney ever "sang."

      -paul

  • I would just turn my back on tech in general and get work doing, I don't know, digging ditches or something but I'm certain some jackass has patented that already too. This is just fucking perfect. Thanks America.</sarcasm></rant>

  • I hearby claim a patent on... (Score:3, Funny)

    by geoff lane ( 93738 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:36PM (#13811392)
    ...space time.

    You ALL owe me bigtime.

  • It was inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LeonGeeste ( 917243 ) * on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:37PM (#13811394) Journal
    Come on, they had to do this at some point. All intellectual works are basically discovery of some *previously existing* but useful aspect of reality. If you invent a new mousetrap, you're discovering the previously-existing aspect of reality that some organization of different materials is better at catching mice. If you write a book, you're discovering the previously-existing aspect of reality that people like a certain combination of words. Trying to classify one kind as "technological" and the other as not gets really tricky.

    Next on the list: the patent office stops rejecting discoveries as being "too theoretical". Imagine working around those patents!
    • Thanks Plato. We are now living 2500 years ahead of you. Trying reading Karl Popper.
    • Next on the list: the patent office stops rejecting discoveries as being "too theoretical". Imagine working around those patents! Actually you have to have a working system, in order to recieve a patent. Theoreticals aren't allowed at all. Nice try though troll.
      • that was his point... imagine if they did away with that rule, as well.
      • This is untrue. The patent office stopped requiring concrete implementation decades ago. All you have to do is demonstrate (generally in some extremely contrived way, with lots of pseudo-technical terminology, to someone who has no idea what you're talking about) feasability of implementation.

  • This could give Carly Fiorina a second chance (Score:3, Insightful)

    by skitheboat ( 901329 ) * on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:38PM (#13811401) Homepage
    Her definition of invent was out there already. I can see her joining a patent holidng company and patenting countless common and inane ideas.

  • Just another straw... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jamesgamble ( 917138 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:40PM (#13811420) Homepage
    ...that will break the US Patent Office's back. We're due for patent reform. It has become such a joke that just about any new technology or idea is already patented in some respect. And if it isn't already patented, someone out there can make a case showing their patent covers the new technology and they are due money in return for fair use. There has to be a limit. Enough is enough.

  • Idiocy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mESSDan ( 302670 )
    If I understood the article, this means you could patent the following:

    I. Method of Selling items: The business shall offer a customer an item/good/idea/etc for an amount of currency (Dollars/Euro/Yen/etc). Upon receipt of currency, or promisory currency note, the aforementioned item/good/idea/etc's ownership will be transferred to the customer.

    It's not like the PTO even looks for prior art.

    • Re:Idiocy (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      shall offer a customer an item/good/idea/etc
      I'll see your patent on selling items, and raise you one patent on selling the license to use an item.

      The business shall offer a customer a non-exclusive, terminatable, license to use a product in exchange for currency or promisary note. The product will remain the property of said business, and the customer agrees to return or destroy the product upon the demand of said business.

  • Not good for a vibrant economy. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:43PM (#13811450)
    A vibrant economy requires resources to be used efficiently. In theory, patents are supposed to help this process by increasing the incentive to invest in capital. Indeed, such investment can benefit both the inventor and the end user. As such, patents encourage the production of new capital, and the new capital is often more efficient at using resources than the previous capital. Thus the economy grows.

    However, it appears as though America is reaching a point where patents interfere with the process so much that productivity is diminished. When an inventor has to search for patents when designing every portion of a capital work, less time is spent on developing the capital itself. Thus the creation of new capital diminishes, and resources are not used as efficiently. That can eventually cause the economy to basically rot.

    This is not what the American economy needs, considering its various other problems (massive debt, inflated stock markets, a housing bubble, and so forth).

    • However, it appears as though America is reaching a point where patents interfere with the process so much that productivity is diminished. When an inventor has to search for patents when designing every portion of a capital work, less time is spent on developing the capital itself. Thus the creation of new capital diminishes, and resources are not used as efficiently. That can eventually cause the economy to basically rot.

      The inventor could just invent a non-infringing method of doing whatever it is he nee
      • It's more a matter of having to investigate each and every part of a design for possible patent infringements that wastes a resource (ie. the innovator's time). It adds a whole extra step between the "design" and "testing" steps. A design not only has to be functionally tested, but would potentially have to be tested for patent infringement as well, even on some of the most insignificant portions of the design.

        Wasted resources, especially the time of the more talented individuals, do not help out the econom

    • Re:Not good for a vibrant economy. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @04:55PM (#13812482) Homepage
      When an inventor has to search for patents when designing every portion of a capital work, less time is spent on developing the capital itself.

      That's only for the small-time inventor, who doesn't hold any (or few) other patents. These are the guys that the patent system is allegedly supposed to help the most -- keep the big boys from stealing their idea. It works laughably in practice.

      If you are a large-time inventor, a multinational corporation, then you explicitly do not search for patents. Because, you see, knowingly violating a patent results in treble damages. Since so many things are patented, violating someone else's patent is inevitable. When they come to the negotiating table, you want two things: 1) to be able to claim that you didn't knowingly violate their patent 2) to have a vast enough patent portfolio that you can be assured that they themselves are unknowingly violating one of your patents. At that point you sign a cross-license agreement that favors the party with the bigger/more valuable pile of patents.

      Guess how well the small time inventor does at one of these negotiations? Can you imagine some small business going up against the patent portfolio of IBM?

      The result is that all the big corps have cross-licensing agreements for all the patents of each other's that they have violated, creating a big mutual technology trust that is a barrier to entry for all smaller competitors. They love this situation, and it only makes sense that they would want to see any restriction on patenting removed, even if it means they will eventually violate someone's ridiculous business method patent.

      Big corps are stealing our money, locking away our technology, and basically planning on destroying our country for a gigantic payoff. In this sense, patents are nothing but a single front, a symptom of the underlying problem.

  • Don't hesitate to punch if you feel like it... (Score:3, Funny)

    by fitchmicah ( 920679 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:46PM (#13811473)
    If anyone was thinking about actually going to some of these headquarters and just punching the shit out of some of these people, I am here to highly encourage you!

  • At least there was one positive thing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:47PM (#13811478)
    It seems there are actually examiners at the USPTO that are willing to call bullshit on a bogus patent. That offers a bit of encouragement.
  • How often are the 'Patents Board' democratically elected, and for how long have they had the power to change the laws of the USA?

    • Re:For the benefit of those of us outside the USA (Score:4, Informative)

      by pyrrhonist ( 701154 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @05:10PM (#13812590)
      How often are the 'Patents Board' democratically elected

      Th Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences [uspto.gov] is established under 35 U.S.C [uspto.gov].

      The Administrative Patent Judges (who issued the opinion in the article) are appointed by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (i.e. "The Director"). The Administrative Patent Judges are regular employees of the patent office, and serve until they quit, retire, are removed, etc.

      The Director is appointed by the President.

      and for how long have they had the power to change the laws of the USA?

      They don't have the power to change the law. They have the power to interpret patent law, "on written appeal of an applicant". Note that the applicant can then take this issue to federal court after it is reviewed.

      In this case, the patent examiner rejected the patent claims of the applicant by arguing that they were outside the "technical arts". The patent applicant filed an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The case was reviewed by the Board and a majority (3 of 5) found that there is no test under the law for determining what "technological arts" covers. The minority argued that the meaning of "technological arts" is equivalent to the "useful arts" phrase in the US Constitution.

      The result of this is that a precedent has been set which determines that, "outside the technical arts", is not a justifiable reason under the law for rejecting patent claims.

  • I worked on a job in the late 2000 where I was going to dummy technology that was already patented. They weren't even started on their project to .... which was going to be written in -insert buzzword (at the time Java Sandbox)- and I was coming on board to basically do a sketch of the whole thing in Flash 5 - but they had their patent.

    These days with much of the Genome patented procreation is a patent violation. So if I knock her up, there's a big-pharm lawyer that might sue.

    [-oblig Bush 41 bash] This

  • A Good Thing? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by slicer622 ( 579305 )
    Am I the only one who thinks this could go well for IP in the long run?

    If the patent office makes a blatantly terrible move like this one seems to be, its possible it could trigger a backlash that will get patent law fixed up properly. People talk about this with the Supreme Court as well - it might be better to overturn Roe v. Wade because it would so energize the choice crowd and maybe even motivate congressional action.

    Just something to consider.

  • Lazy Imbeciles (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:55PM (#13811539) Homepage Journal
    Great. These fools have effectively opened the door to patents on storyline plots [plotpatents.com].

    Anyone have a spare Senator they're not using?

    Schwab

  • This is total bullshit (Score:5, Informative)

    by andreMA ( 643885 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:55PM (#13811540)
    Article I, Section 8
    Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    USPTO has no authority outside the realm of "Science and useful Arts" and patents granted outside the scope of that allowed by the Constitution are illegal. Nor does it matter what Congress has to say about it; granting patents on things not meeting the prior test is not a power granted to the Federal Government.

    They "declined" to create a definition. Translation: we "chose" to ignore the law. Perhaps I'll "decline" to pay my taxes and see how that flies. Arrogant bastards; they need to be put against the wall.

    • Re:This is total bullshit (Score:5, Informative)

      by hagbard5235 ( 152810 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @03:01PM (#13811586)
      In a sane world, you would be correct. But welcome to the wonderful world of Wickard v Filburn, brought to use by FDR's packed Supreme Court, where enumerated powers are no longer enumerated, and you might as well ignore the 9th and 10th ammendment to the constitution. Essentially, Wickard says the government can do pretty much anything under the commerce clause and the general welfare clause. In a sane world, one might argue that the only authority for granting pattents at all comes from Article I, Section 8, clause 8, but in FDRs bizaro world were we all live today, you can just as easily derive the authority to grant patents without restriction from the commerce clause under Wickard.

      Thank you FDR, nobody really needed liberty anyway!

      • Damn fucking right you should thank FDR. Without him, you'd be slaving away 7 days a week, 10 hours a day, in horrible conditions in the guts of some factory, and wouldn't live past 30. FDR gave America the workplace protections that allowed her to thrive through the middle of this century. Now that those protections are being rolled back again, everything is, of course, going all to hell.

        Here's news for you: there's nothing outside of science and useful arts. Business is a useful art. Economics is a scie

        • Business is a useful art.
          Agreed.
          Economics is a science.
          Agreed under reserve.
          BUT: Granted above, then
          A better argument against business method patents is that they do not serve the common good.
          define "common good", since you stated Economics is a science, patents are an economic issue, and you are trying to bring forth arguments.

        • Mod parent +5 funny! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @04:32PM (#13812314)
          Economics is a science.

          Funniest damn thing I've heard all day!

        • Re:This is total bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

          by aaronl ( 43811 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @04:38PM (#13812347) Homepage
          Just because he did one thing correctly does not make everything he did correct. The workplace and labor laws were coming anyway. However, for FDR's signature on that, we also ended up with a lot of terrible programs, such as welfare and Social Security. While we aren't working 7 days a week and 10 hours a day, we *are* working 5 days and 8 hours a day for 60 years, and the majority of people in the country barely keep their heads above water in the process. Add to that the high taxation that everyone endures, and it's pretty messy. We have an unstable currency (see Federal Reserve and the gold standard). We have tremendous numbers of people working for government instead of in private sector. And then there's the fact that even parts of the labor reform have been bad for the country...

          No, FDR was not a good thing, and we shouldn't thank him for all the harm he caused.
        • How did FDR give us workplace protection? He is part of the executive branch, and so he should not have any constitutional power to make laws?

          But even if I assume your assumption is true, and labor unions and direct action by working people had nothing to do with it, and the work week for most people wasn't already 40 hours a week at the time the "fair labor standards act" was made a law, and instead the 40 hour work week was a glorious gift dropped into our lap by a member of the millioniare ruling class,
    • No, just useful arts, actually. Science is the subject matter of copyright.

    • Re:This is total bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @03:16PM (#13811710) Journal
      Does the patented process fall under "Science" or does it fall under "Useful Arts"?

      The court in question declined to create a standard for "Useful Arts" because that is not their responsibility -- the Congress should define Useful Arts, and the Courts could then apply that definition.

      One of the dissenting judges specifically asked for this.

      The three consenting judges did not, but typically when the court declines to establish some standard, they are implying that someone else has that responsibility.

      So all the people who are against "Activist Judges" should be happy.
    • Interesting point; however, strictly speaking, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is a prefatory declaration, and does not explicitly place any restriction on the text that follows. This is similar to the case of the Second Amendment to the Constitution - the prefatory clause does not restrict the operative clause.

  • This is fairly logical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sanity ( 1431 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @02:57PM (#13811557) Homepage Journal
    This is a logical decision, the mistake was made years ago when courts stopped asking the question of why patents should be permissible in some fields but not in others. The current doctrine seems to be that if money can be made with it, then it should be patentable.

    Taking this doctrine to its logical extreme may, unfortunately, be the only way to force people to recognise how flawed it is. In that regard, this may be a useful decision.

    • > This is a logical decision, the mistake was made years ago when courts
      > stopped asking the question of why patents should be permissible
      > in some fields but not in others.

      Is is really the logical next step? If you take any doctrine to it's extreme, you'll nearly always end up with issues. For instance, nearly every health guide will tell you that drinking lots of water (with the appropriate electrolytes) is good for your health. If the "If some is good, more is better" doctrine holds, it must be
      • For instance, nearly every health guide will tell you that drinking lots of water (with the appropriate electrolytes) is good for your health. If the "If some is good, more is better" doctrine holds, it must be true that drowning is good for your health.
        You may find it instructive to consider the difference between "drinking" and "breathing" :-)
        • > You may find it instructive to consider the difference between "drinking" and "breathing" :-)

          Exactly what I was talking about. The missing constraint is that "drinking must not interfere with breathing or any other bodily function that is vital to life.".

          For the patent system, the missing constraint is "it must help more than it hurts".

          Without this contraint, the patent system would eventually fall apart, no matter what patent doctrine you follow. For instance, if you believe that the sole criteria for

  • Patent Cartels (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PktLoss ( 647983 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @03:00PM (#13811575) Homepage Journal
    Hrmm, Though honestly I don't see removing a restriction the department isn't able to define or legally defend as a big deal, recent trends are worrysome. I can see a future where companies pay regular fees to some cartel for protection from patent related lawsuits. At first there will be numerous small cartels kicking around, fighting each other for business, suing each others 'clients', over time the biggest bankroll will prevail and a patent protection fee will become a regular part of doing business.

  • Patents on General Knowledge (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Now class, please turn your books to the section on "Integral Calculus". This class has been liscensed and authorized by Megacorp - holders of patents on the power rule. Please note that any integrals referencing the trigonometric functions must also credit the proper patent holder. sin = George Smith, cos = Megacorp, tan = Umbrella Corp. For a list of all current patent holders on Mathematics please reference "How Freaking Retarded Can We Be (2010 Edition)". Always pay your liscense fees! No calculation wi

  • Maybe They Broke It in Order to Fix It (Score:3, Interesting)

    by quantax ( 12175 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @03:14PM (#13811687) Homepage
    This seems so ridiculous, that I wonder whether this is was purposefully done to force people to reform patent laws. Sometimes you need to utterly break something before people will notice that it was broken to start with. This is the most benign interpretation I can see as otherwise, it seems to be lacking in sense.

  • "We decline to create one." (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mistshadow2k4 ( 748958 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @03:20PM (#13811737) Journal
    Funny. As the Patent Board itself, I'd have thought that was part of their job. Maybe not.
    • Perhaps defining what can and cannot be patented is the legislature's job. Enforcing what can and cannot be patented is the PTO's job.
      • The legislature has delegated the job of deciding what the requirements for patents are to the PTO. Thats why the patent office gets to decide if business patents are okay or not, or whether you need to actually implement something before you can patent it, or whether or not you can implement living things.

  • Drop the duration to 7 years (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Reality Master 201 ( 578873 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @03:23PM (#13811764) Journal
    It's become clear that since the patent office is willing to let anyone patent anything with very minimal checking on validity that patents will effectively end productivity and innovation in the US (and everywhere that has an enforcement treaty with the US). So either we cripple our economy and technological advancement or we modify patents so they don't strangle innovation. So ditch them or limit the duration to a more reasonable timeframe (given the current rate of advancement).

    • Re:Drop the duration to 7 years (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wildsurf ( 535389 ) on Monday October 17, 2005 @04:36PM (#13812332) Homepage
      So ditch them or limit the duration to a more reasonable timeframe (given the current rate of advancement).

      Just last week I was granted a patent, from an application I submitted to the USPTO in February 2001. That's four and a half years. Somehow I think the timeframe of patent examination/acceptance would also have to be reduced, if 7-year patents are to be in any way meaningful. I do however agree that 7 years is a much more reasonable duration than 17 years, for software-related patents.

  • So (Score:2)

    by Ranger ( 1783 )
    Is that good or bad?
  • that the Technological Arts require the elimination of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Slashdot Top Deals

A triangle which has an angle of 135 degrees is called an obscene triangle.

Close