Magical Drug Wins EFF's Stupid Patent of the Month
Last December, the Patent Office issued Patent No. 8,609,158 on a "potent drug" that "rebukes cancer, cancer cells, and kills cancer." According to the patent, this drug cures a litany of other maladies. What is this wonderful invention, you ask? It is a combination of "evening primrose oil, rice, sesame seeds, green beans, coffee, meat, cheese, milk, green tea extract, evening primrose seeds, and wine." As the patent's abstract says, "it works."
There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the person who filed this application. But the patent examiner could and should have rejected it on any number of grounds, including enablement, indefiniteness, and utility. Why would the examiner issue the patent despite its clear infirmities? The answer to that question reveals the fundamental imbalance at the heart of the patent system.
This patent's most obvious flaw is lack of utility -- there's no proof that the invention works. But the system places the burden of proof on the Patent Office, not the person asking for a 20 year monopoly. The examiner likely decided a rejection was not worth the effort -- frankly, we wonder whether the examiner even read the application.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday September 01 2014, @05:19PM
It reads like a crappy health magazine advert. I doubt it cures cancer, but it will probably leave your hairy shiny....
WTF?
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Monday September 01 2014, @06:49PM
Sounds like a bad dinner party at one of my neighbor's.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @05:28PM
If this supposed cancer cure did not contain sufficient key words to be flagged as prior art, why wouldn't the examiner grant it? And what's the harm? All it means is that the patent holder can sue a bunch of other quack cures off the market, leaving a single entity for the forces of evidence-based medicine to target.
Not a bad outcome overall.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Qzukk on Monday September 01 2014, @05:46PM
And what's the harm?
One harm is called "doctrine of equivalents". If you do substantially the same thing, in substantially the same way, you are an infringer no matter what the claims of the patent say. Your fancy schmancy chemicals are substantially the same as primrose oil, aren't they? Close enough for a few thousand dollars for a license license? No? Well, let's ask the referree, it'll only cost you a few hundred thousand dollars for your defense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @03:49PM
I think the grandparent was referring to 'what's the harm to me, the patent examiner' if I just rubber stamp this through.
The answer is, none, absolutely no harm.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Monday September 01 2014, @06:38PM
A useless AC acting like ignoring idiots is a good thing? Nothing to see here. I don't know why people still haven't learned to not post shit like this. No. Validating snake oil in the form of a patent is pretty much the definition of a bad outcome. Just because stupid patents happen doesn't mean that this one is "just another day". It's just as much of a disgusting event as the next software patent.
and those so-called young and underpaid examiners should go find another job if they can't handle it. Are we not yet clear that "I was just doing my job" is not an excuse?
You know what though, let's pretend that we all live in your fantasy world where there is no harm because of this. Is it okay to clog up the already bloated patent registry and dilute the worthy patents while further damaging the USPO's already flimsy reputation just because these trash patents don't do any direct harm? I think not.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 01 2014, @10:59PM
It is okay to clog up the already bloated patent registry and dilute the worth of patents
Fixed that for you
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Monday September 01 2014, @06:54PM
A useless patent? Maybe useless for curing cancer but certainly useful for suing others and for marketing claims. "Our patented formula ... we have the only patented formula ... the USPTO agrees that our formula ...". All are factual and still stink to high heaven.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 01 2014, @07:26PM
Not necessarily [wikipedia.org] a bad thing, especially if the patent applications are crap.
(if you pay them crap and ask them to examine crap, letting shit through their ears is bound to happen)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by TK on Tuesday September 02 2014, @02:29PM
I can't recall the name, but I know there's a scientific paper generator that had some approved submissions to Nature or similar. Would it be possible to re-purpose that program to make patent applications? Perhaps assembly or mechanical drawings can't be reliably generated at random, but I'm sure a few flow charts could be.
All we need is a few tens of thousands of dollars to fund the patent fees.
As a bonus, it would be hilarious to watch a group of Chinese engineers attempt to copy the "invention".
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum