http://www.sptimes.com/2003/02/24/Opinion/Patently_ridiculous.shtml
A Times Editorial Patently ridiculous When peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are getting their own patent, the system intended to protect creativity is in need of a major overhaul. � St. Petersburg Times published February 24, 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Patents were once granted only to useful inventions that promoted creativity in the marketplace and, as former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas explained, "serve a higher end -- the advancement of science." Now, they're given to peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. To illustrate the shortcomings of the current patent system, the Los Angeles Times had to look no further than Patent No. 6,004,596. Two South Dakota men were granted that patent after coming up with an idea to make a one-piece, crustless PB&J sandwich. The sandwich, called Uncrustable, proved popular with school children, so J.M. Smucker Co. bought them out. Wielding its new patent, Smucker ordered a competitor to stop making its E.Z. Jammers sandwich. Smucker expects to win the case and expand its domination of the crustless peanut butter sandwich market. A patent should be granted with great care, because it confers a monopoly to the patent holder and lasts 20 years. Until modern times, machines and industrial processes -- but not ideas -- were considered for patents. That limitation was weakened by a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that extended patent protection to genetically engineered bacteria. The federal patent appeals court opened the floodgates in 1998 when it allowed a financial company to patent its business method, which was little more than the way it used mathematical formulas. At that point, "you're no longer patenting the corkscrew," explained Duke University law professor James Boyle. "You're patenting the idea of taking the cork out of the bottle so you can drink the wine." Now, the rush of patent requests has overwhelmed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Applications are longer and more complex, but overworked examiners are evaluated on how many patents they process, making it more difficult for them to do extensive research. That could be one reason -- along with a generous appellate court -- that 75 percent of patent applications are successful. Rather than stimulating the economy, the flood of new patents often stifles competition and sparks litigation, especially in the technology industry. Some companies exist not to provide a product or service but to sue other companies for patent infringement. As the PB&J sandwich case shows, there is a growing doubt that patents are given only to worthy endeavors. Just for fun, lawyer Peter Olson applied for a patent on the method his young son (and every child) uses to swing sideways rather than back and forth by pulling the chains to the side. His Patent No. 6,368,227 is pending. James E. Rogan, director of the patent office, admits his employees are overburdened. He said his plan is "to use competitive outsourcing and state-of-the-art electronic technology to bring into the 21st century an agency that has been operating on an 18th-century paradigm for the past 200 years." Small fixes aren't likely to regain control of the process, however. A comprehensive review of patent policy is needed, keeping in mind that the goal is to spark economic vitality and advance science, not to help one company corner the market on PB&J sandwiches. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
