Lawyer Sues To Get a Patent On Marketing 116
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
becomes? (Score:5, Insightful)
In almost every other case I would be against this (Score:2)
<disclaimer>I have not read TFA, only the title.</disclaimer>
<humor>
Think of the implications if marketing is patented... LESS MARKETING, at least for a while. I, for one, like it.
</humor>
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of Mr. Harris's legal theories is that a 'company is a physical thing, and as such analogous to a machine.'
I thought the legal representation of a company was as a legal entity comparable to an individual for tax and other purposes. Then, his argument breaks down because he'd be implying that individuals are analogous to machines...
Re: (Score:2)
Then, his argument breaks down because he'd be implying that individuals are analogous to machines...
People are machines, and the only reason they can't be patented at the moment is because there's too much prior art.
Wait until genetic modifications to people become a reality, then you'll start seeing patented people (tm). The human rights consequences are... interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Ohhhh! I'll patent sending unsolicited emails! I'll make millions! Or I'll end Spamming. Either way, it's win-win!
Re: (Score:2)
That hasn't stopped people in the past
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Future is Almost Here (Score:4, Interesting)
Take a look at this article in the Linux Journal [linuxjournal.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm a genius - off to the patent office to patent this idea! I can't wait for my first royalty check.
In related news, Boies, Schiller, LLP, have filed a lawsuit on behalf of The SCO Group against dsginter, who is the assignee listed on a recent patent application for a lawsuit-based business.
Re: (Score:2)
they can try, but rambus has got prior art on that.
Re: (Score:1)
I can see a point where the United States becomes a lawsuit-based economy
I think you are already there. And it's not only Patent-related. The "industry" of lawsuits must be one of the pillars of american economy nowadays.. when people start filling suits because they burned their mouth with coffee or are too damn stupid to keep dangerous cleasing products from their three years old son you just know something went real bad. (really, how stupid you must be to be outsmarted by an infant)
I defend the right to bare arms and resolve conflicts like this in duels. Easy, clean and per
Re:The Future is Almost Here (Score:5, Funny)
I defend the right to bare arms and resolve conflicts like this in duels.
Easy there, I am also a fan of short sleeved shirts, but I'm not sure this is appropriate or traditional attire for a duel.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I defend the right to bare arms ...
Michelle reads slashdot!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
> I defend the right to bare arms and resolve conflicts like this in duels. Easy, clean and permanent. Lawsuit my ass, duels are the new problem solver. If it worked for guys like eastwood, bronson or ledger (solving matters the painfull way), should work now.
You're an idiot. What does being the better duelist have to do with being right or wrong? "This little girl claims she was raped by this police officer, let's give them both a gun and let Odin decide who is right"? Going from a system where the guy
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
GP can't help it, he's German.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops. I fail :/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see a point where the United States becomes a lawsuit-based economy
Easy, clean and permanent. Lawsuit my ass, duels are the new problem solver. If it worked for guys like eastwood, bronson or ledger
Couldn't have picked some real duels, could you? You know, like Hamilton vs Burr, Jackson vs Dickinson, or Lincoln vs Shields.
Re: (Score:1)
Too bad Lincoln brought a knife to a gun fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Lincoln vs Booth was another classic. Too bad Lincoln brought a knife to a gun fight.
Not much of a duel. Lincoln didn't bring anything to that "fight".
I think this would be more akin to the screaming fan-girl getting a backstage pass to Hannah Montana, and Miley unexpectedly shoots her #1 fan.
Re:The Future is Almost Here (Score:5, Insightful)
The lawyers will obviously need to eat and get haircuts....
Lawyers don't eat food, they consume the souls of their clients and their hair doesn't grow because their dead.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
doesn't grow because their dead.
they're
When will people get this right?
Re:The Future is Almost Here (Score:5, Funny)
Never. Their too busy trying to make there mark here and they're.
Sorry, just couldn't resist. Do you realise how difficult that was to type for someone with a traditional education (get it right or say hello to my friend Mr. Board Rubber)? I had to erect a fort first, just in case of flying educational supplies ;o)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, just couldn't resist.
You don't have to apologize, you're a dry cleaner, and it's 3am. It would be ridiculous for me to expect you to be open.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless, of course, you are a DC judge. Then, you would sue him for millions of dollars.
Re: (Score:1)
When will people get this right?
When speel chek is prefected.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Sliders a flop? I have to disagree. Flops don't last five seasons, and in fact Sliders was one of the best alternate-Universe series ever created. If it hadn't been for that bitch Bonnie what's-her-face who in some drug-induced haze thought that Second Wave (gagh!) was a guaranteed hit to replace Sliders, it would have gone on for a lot longer. Sci-Fi put all their marbles into Second Wave (which was an actual flop) and had to cancel Sliders, which in spite of the depredations of producer David Peckinpah wa
Re: (Score:1)
I can see a point where the United States becomes a lawsuit-based economy
Me too. I think it was around the 1992-95 area.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, lost on appeal and bilksi upheld (Score:5, Informative)
Another one bites the dust! (Score:5, Insightful)
IOW, since the court upheld in Re Bilski, this is another nail in the coffin for business patents.
What I'm waiting on is: What does this mean for software patents? I guess we're about to find out in the Microsoft v. TomTom case. I'm sure we all wait with bated breath.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm waiting with baited breath; currently standing on the Redmond campus front lawn, wiggling a minnow between my teeth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What, one can't have a hoard of monsters? I like to collect them. Getting them into chests and the like is a real bitch, though.
Re: (Score:1)
I hoard monsters under my kid's bed, and gold under mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Huh? I hoard monsters. You can't believe what I can get for those things on the black market!
Re:Actually, lost on appeal and bilksi upheld (Score:5, Funny)
I'm telling you, the Take a Shot Every Time kdawson Posts Bullshit Drinking Game is the #1 contributor to cirrhosis of the liver.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This sucks. I was hoping we were finally going to get rid of marketing.
does that mean (Score:3, Funny)
Re:does that mean (Score:4, Funny)
Just claim you patented lying and start extorting all the other liars.
Re:does that mean (Score:5, Funny)
It's that kind of thinking that built this great land.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but how do you find them?
"Are you a liar?" "No."
Old riddles? (Score:1)
Yeah, but how do you find them?
"Are you a liar?" "No."
You need to get all greek-mythology on them... "If you were the opposite of what you are, and I asked you if you were a liar, how would you answer?"
(oh, and then sue them anyway.)
Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits.
...Stores?!?
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits.
...Stores?!?
Real-estate agents?
not a machine (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Your argument is flawed (so is the mod points you were given).
If you are saying you can't patent a company because you can't patent a person you are then saying you can't own a company because you can't own a person. That is the same argument.
Companies are considered non-natural person's for the purposes of taxations. You tax a company like a person is taxed (thought at a different rate). Companies have their own SS# (known as an EIN number ##-#######). After that the similarities between a company
Re: (Score:2)
You can show the world you, as can I. Show me the "Microsoft" or any other corporation, and your arguments will hold water. No, BillG or SteveB don't count, nor do the things a corporation might actually produce, nor do the employees that work for the corporation, or any assets that are owned by the corporation. The Microsoft Campus is not "Microsoft", nor is the shipping center they had in the Canyon Park Business Center, or any other place like that. A corporation is a virtual entity. Ownership of a corpo
Re: (Score:1)
I beg to differ. You can own intangible representation of value in a company (shares). The value (usually in monetary units and/or voting rights) are really worth no more than the paper they are written on. You also cannot say "see, my 200 shares represents these physical components of the company (akin to an arm or a leg)".
You do not own a company like you own a person, but a company itself is still not a tangible entity. Perhaps you are mistakenly thinking about tangible assets owned by a company.
Re: (Score:2)
so is the mod points you were given
I cringed and nearly cried when I read that...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you've just touched upon an argument I plan to take to the Supreme Court as a class action on behalf of all corporations, that their inalienable rights under the Equal Protection clause are being violated. Corporations are denied the right to vote, to attend the school of their choice, to enlist in the armed services, to hold elective office, to adopt children, to marry the person (natural or otherwise) of their choice, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies are considered non-natural person's for the purposes of taxations. You tax a company like a person is taxed (thought at a different rate). Companies have their own SS# (known as an EIN number ##-#######). After that the similarities between a company and a person stop.
Companies are also considered people in most other areas of the law, for instance you can commit theft from a company, despite most definitions of theft being described in terms of people, e.g. "[a] person is guilty of theft, if he d
Re: (Score:2)
You can't. And besides, you can own something without it being patentable. I can create a new car and not patent it, and I own it. Or I can buy something from someone else. It's mine. I own it. But I can't patent it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's even worse than that. A company is not even a "physical person" or physical-anything like the patent applicant wants to argue. A company is simply a legally-recognized *relationship* between physical things and people, not a physical object itself, which are what patents are intended to cover configurations of.
Incidentally, this is the source of another confusion. While the stuff you own might be physical, the legal rights you have in that stuff are not physical; just like a company, they
Re: (Score:1)
--Gilbert Huph
We should really be asking: (Score:2)
Re:We should really be asking: (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this man really have the time and money to waste on something pointless like this?
He's a lawyer. You do the math.
Marketing stunt. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Or he might just be trying to prove how ridiculous the patent system is.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like that freelancer that patented the wheel?
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier for the attacker than the victim. The attacker can, largely, break off at any time to limit their spending.
companies are like snowflakes (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
any reference to Microsoft in this post is purely coincidental...
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
LawyerLandtm... That must be one of those amusement parks for lawyers where they get to ride around all sorts of rides and roller coasters based on trials and precedents, but in a fun surrealistic way like with a mouse, a duck, and a dog. I'd rather guys like Harris go to LawyerLandtm more often and stay away from our Reality.
I wonder what the Lawyers of the Caribbean ride is like...
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder what the Lawyers of the Caribbean ride is like...
The parts of Johnny Depp, Kiera Knightley and Orlando Bloom are all played by Jack Thompson.
Inventive Legal Maneuvering? (Score:1, Insightful)
As long as it's possible to be "inventive" with the law, we will all suffer.
Prior art? Record companies... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Marketing company devoted to selling/marketing products produced by other companies in return for a share of their profits" sounds like what record companies have been doing for almost a century?
Prior art? How about marketing companies? (Score:2)
Who needs to fish for examples.. marketing companies have existed for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Record Companies? Hell, you can go back at least to ancient Rome for something like this. Perhaps even in ancient Egypt there was a town crier paid to shout "Come to Imhotep's Medical Emporium! Buy one brain surgery, get the second one absolutely free! Imhotep! His prices are insane!"
Re: (Score:2)
"Come to Imhotep's Medical Emporium! Buy one brain surgery, get the second one absolutely free! Imhotep! His customers are insane!"
They call it "truth in advertisements".
A patent on retail?! (Score:2)
Doesn't every single retail store sell products produced by other companies in return for their profits?! The fact that anyone could even think this nonsense could be patented shows how screwed up our patent system is.
SCO (Score:2)
... should sue him for violating their patent of suing people for violating their patents.
That's it! (Score:1)
I'm patenting funk.
Patent Application (Score:3, Funny)
A Process for Obtaining Legal Ownership of Certain Intellectual Property
ABSTRACT
An application is submitted to a government run office which oversees the process of granting and protecting intellectual property rights. Applications contain explanations of methods, design, and applications for said creations, and are often accompanied by diagrams and figures representing the proposed creation for which the applicant ("the Owner") will seek to obtain exclusive rights to create or sell. Once such rights are granted, any facsimile or copy produced by anyone other than the Owner, without express permission of the Owner, will been deemed a forgery and they will be prosecuted pursuant to U.S. intellectual property laws. The following rules shall be applied to any application under consideration:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
None. I thought of it first and no one else had ever even conceived of such an invention. Take my word for it, no research necessary. Don't even bother Google'ing it.
DESCRIPTION OF PRIOR ART
Not that this is at all relevant, but see the previous section.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Uselessly over-abused process of rewarding those who deserve it the least and providing consistent unfair advantages to those who will hinder progress where progress is often needed the most.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY-
Patent Application No. 7,512,440
GRANTED 3/10/2009
Summary Wrong, Title Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Typical. kdawson hasn't a clue about Intellectual Property issues, yet posts constantly and inaccurately about them.
Firstly, the lawyer did not "sue" to get a patent. The application was (appropriately) rejected by the patent examiner. The applicant appealed the rejection to the PTO Board of Appeals and the rejection was upheld. The applicant then appealed that rejection to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which applied Bilski to uphold the rejection again. Despite the fact that a court was involved, this was not a "lawsuit."
Rather than appealling to the CAFC, the applicant could have filed a civil action against the Commissioner of Patents in the DC Circuit Court. This would be considered a lawsuit.
The only story here should be that the Patent system worked.
And please, please, STOP posting articles with headlines announcing that somebody "won" a patent. Patents are issued or allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
flamebait???
My patent (Score:3, Funny)
I have been granted a patent on staying home from work and hitting the bong.
To the office with all of you!
Invalidated due to Prior Art (Score:2)
Namely, just about every lawyer in existence...
should have been rejected for obviousness (Score:1)
The problem with re: Bilksi is that all the patents that are being rejected this way should have been rejected because they are "obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art". Bilksi is a copout by the courts that couldn't be bothered to do the right thing by invalidating for obviousness.
The boundary between hardware, software, and processes is not clean cut, and makes a poor basis for rejecting patents.
Re: (Score:2)
As another poster pointed out, you have the order wrong. As a procedural rule, the PTO doesn't even consider the issue of whether or not the patent is novel or non-obvious until it has considered whether the subject matter
Re: (Score:1)
Nonetheless, I feel that the Bilski decision is wrong. The court shouldn't have created a new reason to kill patents when the old reasons were better.
If someone ever came up with a nonobvious and useful business method patent, I would have supported its patentability.
The patent office is doing the right thing. Bilski gives a reason to kill the patent. But the courts should have killed it based on obviousness.
Great Idea! (Score:2)
If this patent means it's illegal for me to market myself in a job interview, I'm all for it!
Law is killing innovation (Score:1)
Luckily its still the easiest country to start a company in, as well as has pretty decent tax and labor laws (beneficial to companies).
Downside to labor... ya'll are expen
Brilliant idea (Score:2)
This was already decided (Score:1)
and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO's decision to give this asinine application the smackdown.
Read all about it on Groklaw [groklaw.net].
The level of legal illiteracy on /. never ceases to amaze me . . .