Patent Pending?

[Brunellus]

Andrew Knight of Vienna, VA has filed a patent application, published today by the USPTO (http://www.uspto.gov"), for a Process of relaying a story having a unique plot (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Knight.IN.&s2=story&OS=IN/Knight+AND+story&RS=IN/Knight+AND+story). He claims a particular plot, the details of which are too trivial to mention here (and are available at the link above), and is seeking protection against anyone else using the claimed "invention".

This is notable because he is claiming patent protection over a plot that, as far as anyone can tell, has not actually been written yet. Had he written the story already, and published the same, he would be entitled to copyright, but he has applied for a patent for prospective protection.

Mr. Knight says he is applying for his patent as a means of spurring innovation; if his application were allowed, he argues, the creativity of "artistic inventors" would be rewarded. If rejected, he forsees a grim future for creativity.


...[T]he value of a singer's performance or a dancer's performance or a writer's performance or an artist's performance is in the performance, while the value of an inventor's invention is in the invention, not a single instance, embodiment, expression, or performance of the invention. The value of a performance is protected by copyright; the value of an invention is not. An artistic innovator is given but two choices absent patent protection: to sacrificially innovate for the unearned benefit of thieves, or to not innovate. Both options are morally and practically repulsive.

Am I the only one who thinks that this is a total abuse of the system, and should perhaps be the spark touches off some very serious debate about the nature of the laws on patentability in the United States?

[GeneralZod]

Am I the only one who thinks that this is a total abuse of the system, and should perhaps be the spark touches off some very serious debate about the nature of the laws on patentability in the United States?

I doubt you're the only one, as yours is the only sane response :)

It's especially interesting to me that you posted this now, as it coincides almost exactly with my starting to read Free Culture (http://www.free-culture.cc/), which I recommend unreservedly to everyone here. It's available as a free download from the site linked (under the Creative Commons license), but I personally am going to buy a hardcopy as this is one piece of writing definitely worth paying for :)

[blastus]

This is the same as trying to patent scientific principals, mathematics, pencils and erasers. I have no problem with a patent as long as it is actually a real invention, and as long as it has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to society (i.e. it is not a frivolous thing like a pencil or an eraser or a method to tab through a web page), and as long as it isn't a scientific principal or pure mathematics, and the patent is not perpetual.

This way not only can the inventor benefit from the patent but society can also. Someone invents something of potential value to society, gets a patent on it, the invention becomes commonplace so the inventor makes a huge profit, afterwards the patent is expired so the invention becomes a commodity that benefits everyone, and the inventor either retires rich or invents something else.