en.swpat.org is a wiki.   You can edit it.   May contain statements End Software Patents does not endorse.

November 2014: About Microsoft’s patent licence for .NET core

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits


Difference between revisions of "Storyline and fashion patents"

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search
m (In the USA: fix {{ref}} tags)
(Added a minor section to tie the conversation back to software patents more clearly and fixed two typos)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
The complete lack of patents for storylines and the centuries of innovation in story writing provide proof that patents are not necessary for innovation or investment of effort.  Patents are not "necessary" for innovation at all, as innovation was present long before, and in the absence of, state enforced patent monopolies.  However, another question is whether patents might ''increase'' the level of innovation.
 
The complete lack of patents for storylines and the centuries of innovation in story writing provide proof that patents are not necessary for innovation or investment of effort.  Patents are not "necessary" for innovation at all, as innovation was present long before, and in the absence of, state enforced patent monopolies.  However, another question is whether patents might ''increase'' the level of innovation.
  
There is little or no research on the topic of storlines, patents, and innovation, but for software there are long lists of studies showing that [[Reducing innovation and research|software patents reduce innovation]].
+
There is little or no research on the topic of storylines, patents, and innovation, but for software there are long lists of studies showing that [[Reducing innovation and research|software patents reduce innovation]].
  
 
===In the USA===
 
===In the USA===
Line 11: Line 11:
 
The [[USPTO]] is currently reviewing four patent applications claiming fictional storylines. (to check: See Ben D. Manevitz "What's the Story with Storyline Patents - An Argument Against the Allowance of Proposed Storyline Patents and for the Rejection of Currently Pending Storyline Patent Applications" (2006) 24 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 717.)
 
The [[USPTO]] is currently reviewing four patent applications claiming fictional storylines. (to check: See Ben D. Manevitz "What's the Story with Storyline Patents - An Argument Against the Allowance of Proposed Storyline Patents and for the Rejection of Currently Pending Storyline Patent Applications" (2006) 24 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 717.)
  
Storyline patents very likely unconstitutional in major patent producing nations like the US.{{ref}}  For example, such patents would upset the idea/expression dichotomy because patents cover all expressions of the idea read by the claims.  In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress does not have the power to bind the hands of so many creators as would be the case from a copyright monopoly on ideas.{{ref}}  Patents, if on writing, have ''greater'' monopoly restrictions than do copyrights (eg, because independent invention and fair use are not recognized) for what amounts to a lengthy period of time in the productive lifetime of any writer, thus very likely running them afoul of the Supreme Court ruling.{{ref}}
+
Storyline patents are very likely unconstitutional in major patent producing nations like the US.{{ref}}  For example, such patents would upset the idea/expression dichotomy because patents cover all expressions of the idea read by the claims.  In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress does not have the power to bind the hands of so many creators as would be the case from a copyright monopoly on ideas.{{ref}}  Patents, if on writing, have ''greater'' monopoly restrictions than do copyrights (eg, because independent invention and fair use are not recognized) for what amounts to a lengthy period of time in the productive lifetime of any writer, thus very likely running them afoul of the Supreme Court ruling.{{ref}}
 +
 
 +
===Relation to Software===
 +
 
 +
Many of the reasons why storylines should not be patented apply to software inventions, as it too is a form of writing.  Further, software inventions entail more than written expression; they imply written facts, like algorithms and maths as well as virtual functionality (functionality that is written into existence and is not limited at all by the forces of nature).  Copyright covers expression, yet even copyright does not interfere with the further writing and exploration of facts.  The significance between truths expressed through words/idealizations and those truths embodied as physically imperfect objects consuming nontrivial quantities of matter in new forms is very significant and has been well recognized in high courts (Diehr SCOTUS ruling and the M-O-T important rule of thumb acknowledged by the same court).
  
 
==Fashion==
 
==Fashion==

Revision as of 18:16, 12 April 2012

Film, literature, and fashion are examples of innovative fields where ideas cannot be patented. (Another article descibes how software innovation also happens without patents.)

Contents

Storylines

The complete lack of patents for storylines and the centuries of innovation in story writing provide proof that patents are not necessary for innovation or investment of effort. Patents are not "necessary" for innovation at all, as innovation was present long before, and in the absence of, state enforced patent monopolies. However, another question is whether patents might increase the level of innovation.

There is little or no research on the topic of storylines, patents, and innovation, but for software there are long lists of studies showing that software patents reduce innovation.

In the USA

The USPTO is currently reviewing four patent applications claiming fictional storylines. (to check: See Ben D. Manevitz "What's the Story with Storyline Patents - An Argument Against the Allowance of Proposed Storyline Patents and for the Rejection of Currently Pending Storyline Patent Applications" (2006) 24 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 717.)

Storyline patents are very likely unconstitutional in major patent producing nations like the US.[reference needed] For example, such patents would upset the idea/expression dichotomy because patents cover all expressions of the idea read by the claims. In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress does not have the power to bind the hands of so many creators as would be the case from a copyright monopoly on ideas.[reference needed] Patents, if on writing, have greater monopoly restrictions than do copyrights (eg, because independent invention and fair use are not recognized) for what amounts to a lengthy period of time in the productive lifetime of any writer, thus very likely running them afoul of the Supreme Court ruling.[reference needed]

Relation to Software

Many of the reasons why storylines should not be patented apply to software inventions, as it too is a form of writing. Further, software inventions entail more than written expression; they imply written facts, like algorithms and maths as well as virtual functionality (functionality that is written into existence and is not limited at all by the forces of nature). Copyright covers expression, yet even copyright does not interfere with the further writing and exploration of facts. The significance between truths expressed through words/idealizations and those truths embodied as physically imperfect objects consuming nontrivial quantities of matter in new forms is very significant and has been well recognized in high courts (Diehr SCOTUS ruling and the M-O-T important rule of thumb acknowledged by the same court).

Fashion

Fashion is another example. Here are some articles that explore this topic:

Related pages on en.swpat.org

External links

This wiki is part of the End Software Patents (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> endsoftwarepatents.org (Main ESP website) <<
>> endsoftwarepatents.org/news (News) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (See: en.swpat.org:About) It's a pool of information, not a statement of ESP's views or policies, so no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (See: Help:How to make a good contribution)