1st Story Line Patent Published

Groklaw ^ | 3 November 2005 | Pamela Jones

[ShadowAce]

It reads like an Onion parody, but it is real. Here's the USPTO published application:

Process of relaying a story having a unique plot

Abstract

A process of relaying a story having a timeline and a unique plot involving characters comprises: indicating a character's desire at a first time in the timeline for at least one of the following: a) to remain asleep or unconscious until a particular event occurs; and b) to forget or be substantially unable to recall substantially all events during the time period from the first time until a particular event occurs; indicating the character's substantial inability at a time after the occurrence of the particular event to recall substantially all events during the time period from the first time to the occurrence of the particular event; and indicating that during the time period the character was an active participant in a plurality of events.

I have to say. They have at last invented a way to destroy all cultural development forevermore. That's an achievement of a sort.

Remember, a published patent means it hasn't issued yet. But if you wish to throw up, read about the dreams being dreamed. They are willing to destroy the world's culture for $67,200. Here's Knight and Associates' legal analysis, which they are probably proud of. To me, it's like figuring out how to destroy the planet and all human life on it. What is your responsibility? To implement it, to even tell anyone what you cleverly invented? I know. Knight and Associates would advise patenting it first.

Andrew Knight's bio tells us that Knight is "the inventor

of Storyline Patents." Please, Mr. Knight, patent that invention right away, so no one else can do it. And will you please think more deeply about what you say in your Acknowledgements section on that page?

New innovations are not created in a vacuum. Many people, through their friendship, encouragement, and instruction, have made possible Mr. Knight’s conception of Storyline Patents and his ability to draft and prosecute patent applications to their fruition . . .

Deep thoughts, please, Andrew. Extrapolate. What do we do when there are no more plots to invent? Hmm. I should write a movie plot about it. A world with no more culture. A vacuum. The world in a Dark Age, where culture is not allowed to the common people, and those who dare to write plots based on earlier writers' works or who read illegal books are burned at the stake. Wait a sec. Didn't mankind do something that already? Uh oh.

Andrew's thought patterns go like this, from the application:

[0011] The fact that each particular expression (e.g., a movie) of a broad artistic invention (e.g., an original plot) is subject to copyright protection is not unique to artistic inventions. For example, the software code on a patented software-containing disk may be copyrighted. The defining criterion separating the subject matter of patents from copyrights is not whether the subject matter is related to art--see the amusing counterexample of U.S. Pat. No. 6,213,778 to Cohen. Rather, the defining criterion is whether the subject matter is a broad concept practically applied or used (patent), or a particular instance, embodiment, expression, or performance of the broad concept (copyright).

[0012] There is little fear that artistic creation will be halted due to the enforcement of patent protection newly applied to artistic inventions. A love song composer may indefinitely continue writing love songs without worry of infringing any patent, because the concept of writing songs about love is old and not patentable. Statute clearly requires an invention to be new and nonobvious to receive patent coverage. Thus, even if the broad concept or invention of singing about love were statutory subject matter under .sctn.101, it is as old as civilization, and would not survive an attack under .sctn..sctn.102-103. In fact, most artistic concepts today are very old--which is precisely the problem that must be remedied by patent protection for artistic inventions. Unless patents on artistic inventions are upheld and enforceable, the great artistic minds of the day will be compelled to continue composing predictable love songs for pop stars and slightly altered dialogues for carbon copied movie plots.

[0013] There is currently little motivation for artistic inventors to innovate new plots, themes, and methods of expression. The value of an innovator's copyright, if he in fact embodies his invention in a particular expression (such as a novel or movie) is far less than the value of the invention itself, because the invention umbrellas every possible embodiment. Further, and perhaps more importantly, the value of his copyright depends on his ability as a performer, not as an inventor. An artistic inventor who invents a fantastically original and compelling plot may not be a particularly skilled writer. He may, for example, have a very limited vocabulary and a poor understanding of grammar. Any book he creates will be avoided by any potential buyer who reads the first paragraph, such that the copyright value of his extremely valuable invention is nil. Any Hollywood producer who sees through the book's garbled sentence structure to the excellent and creative plot beneath the surface may steal the only value the book contained: its inventive plot. The producer may then moderately alter the expression of the plot in a subsequent movie--while keeping the plot's essence fully intact--and obtain unearned financial benefit from the inventor's unrewarded hard work and innovation. If there is any evil that the United States patent system ought to prevent, it is this.

[0014] Said another way: the 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.

[0015] A patent system that sanctions and defends patents on artistic inventions, such as new and nonobvious plots, will spur an array of never-seen-before, never-experienced-before, intellectually inspiring forms of entertainment. A patent system that lethargically clings to an as-of-yet unarticulated rule that artistic inventions are not patentable subject matter because they are not closely enough related to a mechanical gear or an electronic integrated circuit will guarantee our nation the same repertoire of mind numbing movies and dime-a-dozen boy bands.

I hope he's trying to prove that software patents should never be issued, and that the US patent system needs to be reformed, but I don't think so. I have written to ask him pointblank, and I'll let you know his response.

Update: Mr. Knight says he is absolutely serious and that my "analysis" sounds like a whiny soap opera actress. He suggests reading the legal analysis. I have. I didn't say it wasn't clever. I say in my view it's morally and culturally wrong.

[ShadowAce]

There's been some talk here in the past about patents. This, I think, is the WORST example I can think of.

[flashbunny]

well, there's enough 'prior art' to eliminate this idiotic idea.

Sounds like someone needs a hobby- and a life.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

All your culture are belong to us.

[ShadowAce]

That was my first thought. How can anyone possibly think that something like this would be approved--and be serious?

[jb6]

No, this will just further degrade our culture, while the civilized world marches past us, just like in manufacturing, IT, superconductors and quite a few other things. We'll litigate ourselves into extinction but the laywers will live like kings.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

well, there's enough 'prior art' to eliminate this idiotic idea.

The USPTO is so obviously in the hip pocket of the trial lawyers.

The granting of superfluous patents generates revenue for lawyers in applying for the patents and in defending them in court. Lawyers on both sides of the case get paid, regardless of the outcome.

"Patent Barratry" is the correct term for this practice.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

How can anyone possibly think that something like this would be approved--and be serious?

The fact that it was granted answers your question.

[r9etb]

Where does it say that the patent was actually granted?

[flashbunny]

it wasn't granted - just filed.

[N3WBI3]

The fact it even neeeds to be done by the court system is a sign of how fundimentally broken the USPO is!

[soltice]

If you look into the root source of everything evil and rotten in this country, you will find ....

LAWYERS!

From writing the laws, to passing the laws (as legislators), to enforcing the laws (AG's) to interpreting the laws (masters in black robes), and even to any recourse for review or appeal, you find the scum floating to the top.

If the devil is the living flesh of evil, then here is who I think he is. Far from appearing as a hideous demon, he is the average-looking person who walks into a room and shakes your hand with a smile. By the time he leaves, the standards of decency of everyone within that room have been lowered ever so slightly. --- A lawyer come to mind.
iFeminist

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Where does it say that the patent was actually granted?

The fact that it was filed.

The USPTO will grant a patent on ham sandwich.

[Atlas Sneezed]

First, it is not a "patent" or "published patent". It is an "application,", which means that the applicant has made a wish that may not be granted.

Second, all the text in the post relates to the disclosure, not the concept to be protected, which is in the CLAIMS. Here is the Key claim for review, and if it were granted, each and every aspect must be followed for something to infringe. (If anyone knows of a system that has already dome all these things, email it to the inventor, and he will be lawfully obliged to disclose it.)

1. A process of relaying a story having a timeline and a unique plot involving characters, comprising:

indicating a character's desire at a first time in said timeline for at least one of the following: a) to remain asleep or unconscious until a particular event occurs; and b) to forget or be substantially unable to recall substantially all events during the time period from said first time until a particular event occurs;

indicating said character's substantial inability at a time after said occurrence of said particular event to recall substantially all events during the time period from said first time to said occurrence of said particular event; and

indicating that during said time period said character was an active participant in a plurality of events.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The USPTO will grant a patent on ham sandwich.

---

Utter nonsense.

Sometimes, rarely, bad patents are issued. But in the real world, deserving inventions need to fight like hell to gain allowance. The bad, undeserving ones are so rare, but they do get all the headlines. They also get invalidated when the owner is foolish enough to litigate them.

I wish I had a nickel for each time a client with a poor case said "but I have heard of others getting bad patents, why can't I get one?"

[frankenMonkey]

Hey, I just trademarked "It was a dark and stormy night."

...not

[Atlas Sneezed]

The USPTO is so obviously in the hip pocket of the trial lawyers.

---

That is a laughable conspiracy theory.

The USPTO is in the hands of the marginally competent, and the marginally literate with the English language, not to mention being starved by Congress, which steals a major portion of patent fees, which could be used to provide better employees and service.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

A patent attorney defending patent barratry.

Who'd of thunk it?

[Personal Responsibility]

Question: Where do vampires learn to suck blood?

Answer: LAW SCHOOL!

[FlipWilson]

Yep, few realize that you can file an application on anything, yet waste your money and most likely, get nothing. Unless, of course I am your patent attorney in which case its money well spent. . .