Man Tries To Patent Godly Powers; Justifies It By Pointing To Software & Business Method Patents
from the skilled-in-the-art dept
RichS was the first of a few of you to send in this bizarre story of a guy who tried to patent “Godly Powers.” From the abstract:
Christopher Anthony Roller is a godly entity. ?Granters? had been given my powers (acquired my powers) (via God probably). These ?granters? have been receiving financial gain from godly powers. These ?granters? may be using their powers without morals. Chris Roller wants exclusive right to the ethical use and financial gain in the use of godly powers on planet Earth. The design of godly-products have no constraints, just like any other invention, but the ethnic consideration of it?s use will likely be based on a majority vote of a group, similar to law creation. The commission I require could range from 0-100% of product price, depending on the product?s value and use.
While crazy, his argument actually relies on the same basic reasoning for why the USPTO has been approving software and business method patents:
“like software, godly powers is a method, and affects a machine. Like business methods, godly powers produces a useful, concrete, and tangible result, and that should be all that’s needed for statutory material.”
So perhaps the guy is trying to show the ridiculousness of software and business method patents. Or perhaps he’s just crazy. Maybe both.
Patent examiner Tod Van Roy issued a “non-final rejection” on this patent, by noting “The specification has not described how one of ordinary skill in the art could make or use the claimed godly powers.” Indeed. Eventually, there was a final rejection on the patent, though Roller apparently sent a “Miscellaneous Incoming Letter” at a later date as well, but the patent application is now considered abandoned. As for Roller and his godly powers, we hope he’s using them for good.
Filed Under: business method patents, godly powers, patents, sofware patents
Comments on “Man Tries To Patent Godly Powers; Justifies It By Pointing To Software & Business Method Patents”
You mean to tell me that COPYRIGHT MAN might be illegally protecting IP?!?!?
I hope some sort of disaster spawns PATENT MAN to come and save the day!
[/sarc]
This guy with a beard says he has prior art.
When I first read this, I thought he meant to use “godly powers” to acquire “donations” and “fake profits” off it. By manipulating the masses into believing you have communicated with god and have been given the gift of god and the power to heal people. Then hysterical people become cured and the guy makes millions.
If he succeeded, he could sue all those extremists religious groups on TV that make millions of dollars.
“Man Tries To Patent Godly Powers; Justifies It By Pointing To Software & Business Method Patents”
I don’t think God will be too happy about this.
Mutant freak …. kill him !! … 😉
I am glad the guy didn’t get a patent on this, he probably would have patent trolled every religion on earth.
Re:
“I don’t think God will be too happy about this.”
You mean the gods, and no we are not happy about this. I have already spoken to the fates about him … 😉
I just shocked that the application was denied.
Only on planet earth
He’s requesting a patent for only earth? Considering the size of the universe you would think that he’d try to monetize this moment and try other galaxies at least, though i’ve heard that Xenu might has dibs
Separation of Church and State?
Re:
That is why i am sad about him not getting a patent
It seems to all stem from him trying to sue David Copperfield into telling him how he does his magic and David’s lawyer said something about his clients godly powers. http://www.bendmover.com/index.php?Video=DavidCopperfieldCase.wmv
I can’t tell if this guy is crazy or eccentrically hilarious, probably a little of both. His rant about the ability to lie under oath if funny: http://www.truthunderoath.com/TruthUnderOath/TruthUnderOathService.php
http://www.mytrumanshow.com/
I think the most telling thing is that they issued a “non-final rejection” first. Non-final? Seriously? Did they expect him to amend the claims to only include godly powers from the Hebrew god as claiming all godly powers would be overly broad?
Re:
I think the most telling thing is that they issued a “non-final rejection” first. Non-final? Seriously? Did they expect him to amend the claims to only include godly powers from the Hebrew god as claiming all godly powers would be overly broad?
Under the USPTO’s rules, there are very few instances where a first action on the merits by the Examiner can be final. This situation, though ludicrous and silly, is not one of those instances.