Apple Patented by Microsoft 336
An anonymous reader writes "C|net is reporting that Microsoft received a patent on Tuesday for a new variety of apple tree. U.S. Plant Patent 14,757, granted to Robert Burchinal of East Wenatchee, Wash., and assigned to Microsoft, covers a new type of tree discovered in the early 1990s in the Wenatchee area, a major commercial apple-growing region. Dubbed the 'Burchinal Red Delicious,' the tree is notable for producing fruit that achieves a deep red color significantly earlier than other varieties. It is sold commercially as the 'Adams Apple.'" Apparently, the assignation of the patent to Microsoft was an error. Or so they would have us believe ...
The correction to the patent (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should Microsoft have to file a certificate of correction? The process is wrong - What if Microsoft decided 'Hey, we are going to keep the patent. You just try to take it back'. It is the patent office's mistake.
<tinfoilhat place="on">What if the copies of Microsoft Office that were sold to the Patent Office were given a hidden feature of inserting Microsoft into patents that matched specific keywords?</tinfoilhat>
--jeff++
Patent Systems Are Flawed (Score:5, Interesting)
The original concept of the patent system was fine in an era or rural agriculture and home shops. The economics of Perfect Competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition
Today that is quite different.
The small, lone inventor is now a myth because 1) research on technical things (Software Patents aside, those are just bad period.) is done now by large universities and businesses who only can license other technologies and pay the research. 2) the patent application system is prohibitively expensive for any small player. Furthermore, so many applications are filed a year, the office spends about 17 hours an application. 17 hours is not enough to have a generally education person (not even necessarily someone in the field) to take a serious look at the invention. The only way one can compete with a patent is through cross-licensing one technology for another which allows the companies in competition to produce the same product. That makes the patent system moot to all but those entering the market, who get screwed.
The argument goes on, but for the sake of briefness I'll cut it off there at a gross generalization.
Why, for the sake of God's Green Earth, can anybody claim a patent on something that has grown in the ground, DISCOVERED (not invented), and not researched. I don't care, quite frankly, who discovered it, I want to know if there was any human invention in its creation. If there isn't, the patent system has failed on a fundamental level because it's. Not. An. Invention.
Are there any nations with sane copyright, patent, and other laws?
Re:It isn't even april.... (Score:4, Interesting)
WHat if this corn replaces ordinary corn, who does it belong to?
In Saskatchewan (Canada), there are farmers whose field have been spoiled by bio-tech seeds that travel quite far (spoiled because they cant sell to european non-GMO countries) from other farms and who are getting sued by the large corporations for illegally using their products.
The farmer got screwed AND sued.
There were hundreds of different kinds of rice in India and now the majority of rice grown is 2-3 kinds. If these remaining are all GMO rice, then you basically have a billion people hostage to your logic.
Hell, who wouldnt believe the company line how theyre doing 'for the good of humanity'.?
I think they even have Reverend Lovejoy's wife doing PR for them.
Re:Resist this patent madness (Score:2, Interesting)
-> Fritz
Re:It isn't even april.... (Score:2, Interesting)