h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I know this is old news, but I just found out about it. I've known for some time that the U.S. Patent Office was out of control, but this one demonstrates the complete moral bankrupcy of the patent system: Smucker's holds a patent on the crustless peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and it intends to crush anyone who tries to sell one.

http://www.southerndigest.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/02/07/3e4413149a664

How it happens:
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm
Kind of an amusing story about the process, with more or less a happy ending.

and this one: http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment.cfm?id=760822004




But copyright law is something different from Patent law. If a patent lawyer got a hold of these songs, somebody would have patents on "the idea of a song to be sung by celebrants at anniversary festivities" or "the idea of a song about lions"



IBM has patented the idea of "first come, first serve" for goodness sake!

I tend to disagree. The quarter century after death law seems quite fair and it is an intellectual property after all. As to patenting concepts, I think the music copyright laws can't be extended into that realm. The family just wants it's *needle drop* money as it is called. The threat over Disney commercial symbols in Africa is just a way to *garnishee* the money they want, a legal half nelson.
I think as well that the IBM tag line was copyrighted as an advertising phrase, not as the sentence itself. That would just prevent anyone else from using it for advertising, which would be reasonable since using the phrase or something very similar to it (in advertising) would be an unfair advantage for a competing company or else a very distructive tool.

Unlike most of my MP ripping friends I feel quite strongly about intellectual property. There are exceptions where the legall profession leap over the line with both jack booted feet but on the whole I believe the protection is relatively fair.

*galling* as the profession is, it's still spelt *legal* innut?

Just to try to be a little clear, I'm agreeing with your first sentence but taking exception to your second. (In your last post.) As to Smuckers, aren't they just patenting the concept as a marketable unit? I mean if someone made triangular butter tarts I'm sure the fellas in Ottawa would grant a patent, wouldn't they?


Mmmmmmm.


Butter tarts.

I feel strongly about intellectual property as well, but I think that copyright law is the place to take care of that in most cases. The problem that is occurring with the U.S. patent office is, in part, that the old criterion of novelty and non-obviousness has been abandoned along with the idea of the unpatentability of ideas. So now patents are no longer for machines or industrial processes but for any old passing thought somebody has. At somepoint, someone will try to patent the wheel, for goodness sake.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/07/02/australia.wheel/

I invented the square wheel, you know. Made another application on an improvement a year later as well. The triangular wheel.












One less bump.

sorry, simulpost.

If you look at the article in post three you'll see that IBM patented a "method for taking reservations for airplane washrooms" which was in fact "first come, first served".

My point about the song patents is not that the patenting of songs is likely to happen. It's just that U.S patents are being granted so quickly, with so little review, and covering such a huge and vague intellectual area within one patent, that it is stifling.

As for Smucker's, they claim their patent covers sandwiches with no crusts on the bread, no matter what the filling. To my mind, that is not a novel enough idea (since it has been a common product at cocktail and tea parties for at least a few generations). To use your butter tart analogy, it is equivalent to patenting tarts which do not have an upper crust, no matter what the filling, in order to lock up the market on butter tarts. Anybody would still be free to sell butter tarts, but they'd have to put a crust on the top or it would be a patent infringement. It's just silly.

bloody simulposts.

Thanks for that link.


See my point?


Funny thing is, it's not really *my* point. Scientific American has a column on Patent Absurdities every month.

I miss Scientific American. Come to think of it, my local bookstore has it and is called *McNews*. I wonder how they got away with that.

I understand the patent/copyright line (it's that little diagonal one between them, see?) but I really think the patent mess has been caused by lawyers who 1) want to generate more cash and 2) are looking for innovative ways to ensure their corporate cows get an edge of *any* kind. As to the IBM thing, wouldn't a phrase be copyrighted rather than patented?

Agreed, the patent laws are flawed and getting more flawed as we speak. At least the general public and some watchdog organisations are aware and doing something. But a butter tart without an upper crust? Now you're just being silly.

As I understand it, the IBM thing wasn't the phrase; it was the actual method: "the first person to arrive is the first person to use the washroom. The second person to arrive is the second person. And so on."

let me see if I can find a link.

Here we go: http://news.com.com/2100-1017-961803.html?tag=fd_top_6

Disturbiing, but it looks like some who worked for IBM got muscled out of the line enflight. By the sound of it I imagine it was a beginning of a method whereby whoever got on board first had dibs for the washroom ahead of the late ones. All cleverly computed on some IBM device to be invented later. I look down and don't see my boxers in a twist, though.

To repeat something I believe I said in the first post:




I'm not really upset about any of these specifics. In general, I think the patent laws have become ridiculous at best and in some cases they have been genuinely detrimental to innovation.

The thread was really meant as a bit of a joke.

Not knowing whether you're wearing boxers today, I'll hazard a guess that they're not in a twist as well.

Anyway, I know it's a bit of humour. I've just been playing along/the devils avocat (that yellow liquor). You know me better than to actually get upset, don't you?

Although, there is a serious issue behind the joke.


(Avocat is yellow?)

I have patented the squiggly black clouds over the heads of cartoon characters that indicate anger .... I am sure I could extend it to the little clouds that come out of peoples' ears when they are really mad/eaten something really hot.

It won't be long before I can figure out how to get royalties from irate thread-posters.

I think I shall also copyright "Steaming mad".