Some years ago a U.S. judge ruled that "business methods" could be patented,
perhaps he wanted to create a legacy for himself, anyway then he kicked the
bucket. Rulings and case law have proliferated since then. (Testing out a new
legal principle on that old "case-by-case" basis, ka-ching, ka-ching.) Congress
still hasn't cleaned the mess up.
So, if business methods can be patented, then why not "intellectual methods"?
That's an even more terrible idea. Maybe I should patent or copyright it in
order to prevent anybody from carrying it out.
Of course Penrose in Britain was granted a copyright (which I hear has expired)
for the concept of the Penrose Tile -- the ability to create an acyclic pattern
using only two tiles. He started proceedings against somebody for that (they
settled out of court).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Johnathan Corgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything
ohn M wrote:
> Seriously: there are countries where a patent can be
> granted only if a working model can be produced (this
> is against the perpetuum mobile deluge of patents). It
> may be valid for a TOE as well.
The patent process is designed to provide an inventor with certain legal
rights regarding the use of his invention by others.
To attempt to patent a scientific theory (regardless of its scientific
merits or lack thereof) in the guise of a "model process" is both
frivolous and bizarre. I am at a loss to understand the motivations of
the original poster in doing this.
On the other hand, I did not intend to "shut down" discussion of the
actual hypotheses presented.