Storyline Patents Put To The Test? Or Just Proving A Point Through Absurdism?

from the making-a-point? dept

Over the summer when the EU was arguing over software patents, Richard Stallman wrote up an opinion piece pointing out just how clueless the politicians involved were. In defending patents, one politician clearly didn't understand the difference between patents and copyrights, as the politician used Victor Hugo's written works as a reason to fight for patents. Stallman came back, noting that if patents covered storylines than Hugo never would have been able to write Les Miserables as the storyline would have been patented already. Well, now, that concept may be put to the test. Slashdot is pointing out that the USPTO is supposedly about to publish the first storyline patents. There are a few things about this story that (a) are wrong or (b) are unclear. The /. piece makes it sound like these patents have been granted. Instead, they're just being published, which is part of the regular patent process, before a decision is made one way or the other. There's still a very good chance that these patents won't get anywhere, because (one hopes) the patent office would recognize the ridiculousness of this all. The other thing worth noting is that the "source" for this is a press release from the guy who's applied for the patent. His website contains a long, and somewhat bizarre, legal defense behind the idea of patenting storylines, including some hilarious statements: "There is currently little motivation for artistic inventors to innovate new plots, themes, and methods of expression." Reading through the pages, you get the feeling that this is satire through patent application. There is, of course, the possibility that this guy is serious, but I'm hoping that this is more of an attempt by him to point out how ridiculous things like software patents are by taking the concept to the logical absurd extreme: patenting storylines. Of course, these days, with the way the patent office acts (and the way patent trolls abuse the system), what seems absurd has often actually been ridiculously serious in the past. Hopefully, this isn't one of those cases. Of course, even if this guy is doing it to prove a point about other patents, it's not clear if many will get the point or actually do anything to fix things like software patents.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 4th, 2005 @ 3:08am

    No Subject Given

    *HEAD EXPLODES*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Newob, Nov 4th, 2005 @ 5:11am

    Patently absurd

    Patenting absurdism is patent absurdity!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    deadheadjpa, Nov 4th, 2005 @ 6:56am

    Re: No Subject Given

    the really troubling USPTO practice is the patenting of Buisness Methods, art unit 705 which became more established following the CAFC State Street decison\
    Full Disclosure:
    *** i am employed as a paralegal for an IP firm embroiled in litigation involving buisness methods patents &%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


    The USPTO now has an entire section devoted to buisness methods,
    http://www.uspto.gov/web/menu/pbmethod/
    excerpt of main page:

    Patent Business Methods

    Welcome to Technology Center 3600's Business Method Web Site. This site is specifically designed to provide you with current information on Business Method-related patent issues. We are making every effort to deliver this information in an easily accessible format, and hope that you find it helpful in answering your questions regarding business method patent-related topics.


    John J. Love
    Director, Technology Center 3600
    john.love@uspto.gov

    Announcement of Spring 2005 Business Methods Partnership Meeting
    Prior Art in the Field of Business Method Patents - When is an Electronic Document a Printed Publication for Prior Art Purposes?
    Questions and Answers from the July, 2002 Business Methods Partnership Meeting
    Thank You to Our Training Volunteers and Request for Additional Training [PPS]
    November, 2001 Partnership Meeting Newsletter
    Federal Register Notice - Notice of Search Criteria for Class 705 [PDF]
    Successfully Preparing and Prosecuting a Business Method Patent Application
    Trilateral Business Methods Comparative Study - 6/26/2000
    March 2000 Director Initiatives
    Business Methods White Paper
    Class 705 Classification Definitions
    Class 705 core databases
    Class 705 Managers/Contacts/Art Units
    Class 705 Application Filing and Patents Issued Data
    103 Rejection Examples for Business Method Inventions
    USPTO Today Article - Business Method Fiscal Year 2001 Statistics
    For the Revised Examination Guidelines for Computer Implemented Inventions, click here and go to MPEP 2106
    Inventor Resources web site
    State Street Bank decision
    AT&T v. Excel decision
    Training Materials for Computer- Implemented Inventions
    S

    There are a plethora of more competent folks monitoring the circus, EFF in particular is outstanding and their are several IP patent lawyers who really do the heavy lifting in their blogs see http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/

    Patently-O: Patent Law Blog
    by Dennis Crouch, patent attorney at McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP.


    With respect to copyrights and the grokster decison the following law review journal article makes some interesting points:




    VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY
    SPRING 2005 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA VOL. 10, NO. 4
    Can the RIAA Survive
    “Substantial Non-Infringing Uses?”
    J. BRIAN BECKHAM†
    ABSTRACT
    This Note discusses peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing cases as they relate to rights in digital media. The recent problems involving P2P stem from the Supreme Court Sony-Betamax
    case of 1984. This piece takes issue with the scope of the
    Sony decision and several other notable cases in this
    context, and discusses the proper standard to be applied in
    cases involving charges of contributory copyright
    infringement. The Seventh Circuit gives Sony a plausible
    reading by balancing the intent of software distributors and
    the harms to rights holders—an approach mandated by the
    Court in Sony, and soon to be revisited in Grokster.
    Conversely, the Ninth Circuit glosses over the import of the
    Sony decision by ignoring intent and, more importantly, by
    disregarding the feasibility of balancing the parties’
    respective interests with the potential harms to the parties.
    This Note suggests that courts faced with the defense of
    substantial non-infringing uses should employ a fact-
    intensive approach utilizing the balancing of interests
    mandate given by the Court in Sony, or in the alternative, that legislative action may be necessary. The discussion concludes with some final remarks about the direction of the doctrine, and offers some possible solutions for content
    owners to stave off unauthorized distribution of protected
    works.
    © 2005 Virginia Journal of Law & Technology Association, at http://www.vjolt.netparagraph numbers for pinpoint citations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Bob, Nov 4th, 2005 @ 9:18am

    New Patent Idea

    I think I'll patent the process of coming up with new Patentable ideas.

    Then, I won't license the patent to anyone, but will sue EVERYONE who files for a patent.

    Whatcha all think? If anyone wants to do this, go ahead, just attribute me!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Charlie Sierra, Nov 4th, 2005 @ 10:59am

    Wow, this is so dangerous

    Wow, this is so dangerous. Congress must act to put an end to these distortions.

    PS. Mike, sorry, wasn't trying to be snide in another comment, merely tic via hyperbole. Guess it didn't work. :(

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2005 @ 6:23am

    Wait, patenting storylines would be great


    It would stop Hollywood producing films based around the same old tired formulae until twenty years after the original patented version.
    Of course, if there's been a new and non-obvious storyline produced by hollywood in the last decade which might potentially have been patented, then I'm a monkey's uncle.
    To be honest, I don't see the problem with storyline patents. You'd have to put so much detail into your claim to avoid the centuries of prior art out there that the patent would be useless. Why not let idiots who want to try to patent such things throw their money at the government?
    Here's an example. Let's say Disney had wanted to patent "The Lion King" as a storyline. Well, that story shows a remarkable similarity to Hamlet, so the patent claim would need to avoid describing that. I suppose claim 1 could be "hamlet with animals", which would at least be new, but since Disney have been re-doing famous stories replacing human characters with animals for ages, such a claim would be obvious. OK, so how about a claim 1 "Hamlet where the character of Hamlet is a lion cub". Now that could potentially be patented as a lion is arguably not an obvious choice (I always saw hamlet as a goofy bird).
    As a result, we couldn't retell Hamlet and replace Hamlet with a lion cub until the patent had expired. Ooh, how terrible! I'm really worried and I'm feeling totally unable to express myself artistically because of this patent! (not!) Patents on storylines are a ridiculous concept not because they'd damage society, but because they'd be completely useless!
    So I say grant him his patent, let him and other idiots like him waste his money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Mark Anderson, Nov 7th, 2005 @ 2:42pm

    Re: Patently absurd

    Another thing is that the guys "plot" is a rip off mix of the Rip Van Winkle story mixed with Conneticutt Yankee in King Arthur's Court and the Back to the Future movies.

    Jeez!

    M!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This