Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet Theory of Everything

From: Benjamin Udell <budell.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 18:51:42 -0400

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" <jcorgan.domain.name.hidden>
To: <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
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.

-Johnathan
Received on Wed Oct 05 2005 - 19:01:53 PDT