The Fight To Patent A 'Paradigm' For Marketing
from the fantastic dept
Slashdot points us to a story about Scott Harris' ongoing attempt to get a patent on a way to market software. Harris is effectively trying to claim a patent on a "paradigm" of marketing software for other companies. For a variety of reasons this should be unpatentable, and so far (thankfully), the USPTO and the courts have agreed -- but Harris keeps trying to appeal, claiming that a company is no different than a machine -- and if a machine can be patented, so can the "paradigm" of the company.Whenever we discuss patents around here, and say anything about patenting an "idea" or a "concept" the patent system supporters in the crowd are quick to yell and scream about how you can only patent "inventions" or the "reduction to practice" rather than the idea or the concept. But as anyone who's been watching the patent system over the past couple of decades knows, the definitions are being pushed, tweaked and stretched beyond recognition -- and Harris's attempts here are representative of that fact. It's great that they haven't succeed yet -- but plenty of other such twists on patent law have been happening for years.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: marketing, paradigm, patents, scott harris
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Can someone please explain how Amazon's "On-Click" patent is not patent on an idea?! Heck, how any business model patents are not merely patents on ideas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It is a process...
Regardless, the USPTO, the BPAI and now the CAFC have all found the subject matter to be unpatentable. Once again, the system did what is was supposed to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Already said, done and out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frivolous Litigation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Frivolous Litigation
Because in ex parte decisions like this, there is no defendant. Hence, there's no attorney's fees to charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Frivolous Litigation
A means to continually submit the same frivolous case with the hope that it will eventually be accepted.
Sounds like a child asking for a cookie, over and over ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Frivolous Litigation
A means to continually submit the same frivolous case with the hope that it will eventually be accepted.
Sounds like a child asking for a cookie, over and over ...
How is anyone here continually submitting the same case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Frivolous Litigation
here is an excerpt:
"For a variety of reasons this should be unpatentable, and so far (thankfully), the USPTO and the courts have agreed -- but Harris keeps trying to appeal, claiming that a company is no different than a machine"
Or are you saying that Harris has changed his claim slightly each time and therefore it is somehow different? He wants a patent on his "idea" and will try to justifiy it in any way possible.
Can I have a cookie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Frivolous Litigation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Frivolous Litigation
- No
Daddy, can I have a cookie?
- No
Gramma, can I have a cookie
- No
Grandpa, can I have a cookie?
- No
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Frivolous Litigation
Mommy, can I have a cookie?
- No
Local child welfare authorities, my mommy would not give me a cookie, which I believe to be abuse. May I now have a cookie?
- No
State child welfare authorities, I believe the local authorities erred in finding I was not entitled to a cookie, and I believe they are wrong. Am I not entitled to a cookie?
- No
That is not "resubmission" of the same claims. In fact, it is not "submission" of anything at all. Each appeal (BPAI and CAFC) is for the finding of error in examination. No error was found, so in fact, RESUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMS IS NOT POSSIBLE.
Any other questions or examples?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patenting concepts
It needs to stop, but that is not the real problem. The real problem(s) are:
1. Lack of campaign finance reform, allowing the wealthy to "buy" legislators, and
2. Forcing the USPTO to be self-supporting.
Until these are fixed, it will be the "rubber blanket" problem; push down a bulge here and it will reappear there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patenting concepts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]