Re:A few beefs (Score 1)

I also have a few issues with this article. There is a fundamental distinction between an invention and a discovery. An invention is an original creation whereas a discovery is an uncovering of something occurring in nature. Per patent law and the constitution, patents only extend to inventions. A monopoly on naturally occurring phenomemon is not logically related to the advancement of the useful arts. Remember how long it took computer software to get to patentability? The PTO believed that computer programs were nothing but strings of naturally occurring algorithms. Simply because researchers have discovered a means of defining how our bodies recognize and recall smells, it does not follow that the smell of a bakers bread would be patentable. If many bakers use the same ingredients in their bread, the smell will be similar. Not to mention in use in commerce for ever! (Perhaps a special chemical compound in the bread producing a distinctive smell? Gross.) I think many people would take issue with the proposition that without a pre-existing patent there is no prior art to bar patentability. Useful articles in the public domain, even those never under patent, qualify as prior art. Imagine the difficulties with blocking patents. Is the nose of this wine a slight improvement on the last? Would we exempt smells from the doctrine of equivalents? Perhaps we would have to import some trademark law? Ie party one has the patent on the smell of fresh bread in an aerosol spray can but party two can have a patent on the same smell in a dish towel? Perhaps now I'm rambling on a parade of horribles similar to Mr. Freys article. Finally, I believe psychologists and marketers alredy attempt to use smells to trigger both childhood memories and the "buy" command?