Patented Investments! Yuck!

Yes, it does. I am going to need at least two cups of tea after skimming thru it.

Stay tuned while I apply for my new patent based on statistical analysis of probability of blackjack with regards to gain/return verses risk analysis assessment of <zzzzzzzz>

Stay tuned for part's 2 and 3 of the title.

Still, beats free energy devices (but not by much). Madness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"MBA's, we don't need no stinking MBA's <bwhahahaa>"

You are infringing on my patent on drinking tea while skimming.....

Hi Ken,

A few comments on your post and the patent in question:

- As business methods patents go, this one is not all that new, issued in 2001. The claims are fairly narrow, directed to investment in brownfields remediation. And the premise of what was patented is not bad. Brownfields need to be cleaned up. Sometimes those responsible for the pollution can't be held accountable. They can be bankrupt, dead, or in jail. What was patented was a method for getting completely innocent third party investors to invest in the cleanup, without them being liable for damages if something went wrong in the attempt to do the clean up.

- A number of business methods patents issued after a major court decision (State Street Bank v. Signature Financial) in 1998 upheld an early biz method patent. But both software and business methods patents are getting more difficult to get in the U.S. as case law evolves. By case law, I mean court decisions in subsequent litigation of patents after they issue. This is common as technology evolves and patents get issued in new subject matter areas. It takes time, but the balance between the public interest and that of inventors and the private sector are usually attained with our justice system.

- For some additional info on the history of software and biz method patents, click here.

BTW, as a patent practitioner, I stay away from this area. Don't have an MBA or a software background. I like my chemicals and nuts-and-bolts stuff.

jhammond

__________________________

www.patent-innovations.com

Hi, Jhammond:

I just wanted to say I appreciate your thorough and articulate reply. It helps restore my perspective. However, I'd have to say that patents on gene sequences, software, and biz methods still feel fundamentally "wrong" for reasons I can't articulate (at least in a few words). I suppose it is partly just gut feel.

Many years ago, I'd been working in interactive video/multimedia/hypermedia industry for several years when McGraw Hill patented "Multimedia" (which I think was one of the very early software patents). I don't think I actually read the patent, but hearsay was that they were patenting something that 1. already existed 2. that had not been subject to patents, (so there was no need to check your code for possible infringement). The broad "means to ..." statements seen in all patents somehow seem reasonable in patents of actual objects, but in patents of software they seem far to broad, and very difficult to interpret, making the patent world unnecessarily litigious and placing a huge burden on software developers to read through reams of code for possible infringements.

If I have time, I'll try to find that multimedia patent and read it... maybe it will seem reasonable.

Thanks again, Ken

As jhammond mentioned, this one, at least, had some merit. But in general, my take is that if it's a patentable invention, it's something I can kick, bite, or stick a knife in, not an investment scheme. And software should by rights be copyrighted, not patented. Not 3-D enough for my tastes... Call me old-fashioned...

Patents are expensive and long time to get usually. I'd like to see some protection for "Discoveries" IE IF someone discovers that for example an everyday substance or material or product cures lets say poison ivy, what protection is there? I understand that patents only are awarded for new "structures" . In other words the structure has to be different, so that a chair isn't patentable unless its significantly different from normal 3, and 4 leg chairs. Any ides on how to protect discoveries that everyday items can actually cure maladies or diseases? thanks.

I believe (and there are plenty of folks here to correct me if misteaken [sic]) that patents can be awarded for "significant new uses" of already existing items. Which is why I'm trying to find a significant new use for something really common, like...

But then, someone already claimed rights to "skimming whilst drinking tea", so there may be a fight over this one...

Hi Old Fashioned. I agree.