That sounds like a pain in the ass. I agree: Solving that problem 12 years does sound like innovation. Oh, I see. You're the type that thinks innovation has to be lightbulb-level innovation. Well, agree to disagree.
Could you be a little more specific? Is there a place you can buy them and get them for free, but to get them for free you have to watch an ad first?
The patent is directed to a website that sells things.
And the patent goes back to 2000.
No, that is not what the patent is about.
It's about offering the content for sale AND offering it for free, but you only get it for free if you watch an ad first.
Did YOU actually read the letter? The whole letter and not just the excerpt that you linked to? Here's the whole letter.
http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/mcphersonletter.html
Maybe you should do a little more digging before you grab your pitchfork.
First, even in the excerpt you cited, Jefferson acknowledges that progress can be made towards forming a general set of rules. He's not saying there shouldn't be anything such as IP (which is what you and every other knee jerk engineer seems to quote this for).
Second, he actually requests that the very letter you're excerpting not be used to misrepresent what he's saying:
"I have thus, Sir, at your request, given you the facts and ideas which occur to me on this subject. I have done it without reserve, although I have not the pleasure of knowing you personally. In thus frankly committing myself to you, I trust you will feel it as a point of honor and candor, to make no use of my letter which might bring disquietude on myself."
Long story short, you do much disservice to your point when chastising me for cherry picking points but then rely on them yourself as your sole support for your main argument.
And I'M the troll.
And yet Jefferson was the first Commisioner of the Patent Office. Kinda undermines his repeatedly copypasted quotes.
You're supposed to be able to patent the cotton gin, but not "a process for separating cotton from seeds."
Based on what? Processes are absolutely meant to be patentable. 35 USC 101 says:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
It says processes are patentable right there in the statute and has for 50+ years.
By the way, you claim that Edison patented "his lightbulb." You assume he only had an appatatus claim. Just out of curiosity, would you change your opinion if one of the claims of his patent said "a method of producing light..." Choose your answer carefully.
I'm actually not being facetious. So did Edison discover that running a current through a filament when encased in glass makes it glow or did he invent it? Seriously.
I disagree that it's disconnected from reality and common sense. It's the same invention, we're just looking at it from different angles. You claim to want to protect inventions, but are drawing a very narrow definition of what is an invention (apparatus) and what is not (process).
And I'm sorry it's so confusing for you. Legally, there is no difference.
No, same invention, different way of casting it. I've cast it as a method, you've cast it as an apparatus. It's the same invention though.
And "copying" has nothing to do with patent infringement. If someone came up with the light bulb independently, they'd still infringe.
By that argument, anything ever made was "discovered." I discovered that when I ran electricity through a filament, it lights up. And I discovered that I can encase it in glass.
Agree to disagree.
So any new process that is invented - like something equivalent to the invention of the process to make steel - cannot be patented? Yeah, that seems like a great idea.
Thank you, thank you, 1000 times thank you.
Right on all accounts.
IAAL.
True patent trolls, entities that solely exist to acquire patent portfolios and weaponize them for profit, do not know anything about the content of the actual patent.
Straight up WRONG. For every non-techie litigator that a patent troll has, there is a technical patent attorney with an engineering degree that is supporting the litigator.
I say this having represented defendants in about a dozen patent troll cases.
Sincerely,
A patent attorney with a comp. sci. degree
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
