Mises blog; archived comments below
The 64 Unique Patents
As I’m a practicing patent attorney, I often get promotional material from various vendors and local and international law firms–calendars, etc. I received a The 2011 Keller Patents Top Twelve Calendar recently from a patent seacher. Interestingly, he writes:
As a professional patent searcher serving many of you over the years, I have had the fascinating opportunity to see some of the most interesting patents ever issued. This year I am taking the opportunity to share some of the best with you. As the months go by, you will get to enjoy some of the most “unique” devices the PTO ever granted patents on. Every one of the patents you will view were found during the course of a search I was conducting.
… I have conducted a few thousand patent searches in my career, starting in the “paper only” days—all the way up to the present EAST system. Everything from simple mechanical and electrical novelty searches to validity and infringement studies and heavy duty chemical searches. Of the hundreds of thousands of patents I have seen throughout the years, only 64 to date, meet what I like to call “unique”.
This year I present 12 of my favorites ….
Fascinating, isn’t it, that this professional patent searcher, who has seen hundreds of thousands of patents, has only found 64 that he finds “unique.” Keep in mind, for a patent to be issued it is supposed to be both novel (new) and non-obvious (inventive), i.e., “unique.” And of the 12 he selected, most of them of these “unique” patents are ridiculous or frivolous/useless junk, like the “pat on the back apparatus.” (The PDF scan of the calendar is linked above; I’ve cropped out the calendar pages.)
For examples of other ridiculous or absurd patents, see Patent on a Stick; patently silly; PatentLawPractice Wiki; Gene Patent Absurdity; Christmas tree stand watering system; other examples in The Intellectual Property Quagmire, or, The Perils of Libertarian Creationism [PPT; PDF].
***
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Thank God for the patent system, because without all of it’s billions in litigation, lost economic activity, and reduced innovation, we would have never had those 64 unique inventions.
Not to nitpic or anything, but doesn’t he mean “unique” as in qualifying for his calendar?
Do you really think he means that only 64 patents of those issued failed one of the primary test of “origanality”?
You might be trying to read a little too much into this comment, don’t you think?
Now, are some patents issued for some stupid stuff? Sure, but who cares if someone has a limited monopoly on something stupid? That hardly undermines the entire concept, does it?
Wildberry, he doesn’t specify, so it’s not clear; but still, I thought it interesting to note it. (And the standard for patentability is not “originality,” it’s patentable subject matter + utility + novelty + nonobviousness.
Stephan, FWIW, you may be interested in this article on copyright in e-books: The downward spiral of ownership and value
Mr. Kinsella – I am the patent searcher you write of. Since the mailing of some 33000+ calendars, I have had over 1100 e-mails from IP attys and agents. All with the same understanding of the calendar’s content. They get the humor. I was wondering how long it would take to find the first individual that has an amazing graps for the obvious. Or in this case not. And by the way, the inventor of the railway bicycle was a commercail success – I actually got an e-mail from him as well. The point was not patentability or non-obviousness. As soon as I get one of the pat-on-the-back devices – you win it and it will be shipped to your PTO registrtion address.
For the rest of you reading – if you need someone who has one of the best grasp on professional patent searching – Call me. Martin Keller 703-624-0310
Martin Keller
I love it.
Hey, don’t knock #3,755,962, aerial plating method and apparatus, I’ve seen them in use by the California depart of Forestry!
Well, ok, actually they were just curled plastic into a cone shape, dirt and tree as described in the patent, then dropped out of airplanes to go “thunk” into the ground somewhere…
California wouldn’t waste money on something that didn’t work, would they?
My favourites include A P Pedrick’s patents, in particular this one:
GB1426698
PHOTON PUSH-PULL RADIATION DETECTOR FOR USE IN CHROMATICALLY SELECTIVE CAT FLAP CONTROL AND 1000 MEGATON EARTH-ORBITAL PEACE-KEEPING BOMB
That patent is well worth reading. Here is a link to it.
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19760303&CC=GB&NR=1426698A&KC=A
Click on “description” or “original document” and read it. I always laugh at how Ginger the cat teaches the “important” portion of this patent.
Sione
Large prime numbers used in data encryption have also been patented. A number? Yes. Be careful how far you count, you could be infringing.
Ah yes, the joys of the government RSA patent.
Those heady years of the NSA vs. the World over Pretty Good Privacy were so much fun to live through.
what? Numbers patented? Well, I guess we should go back to roman numerals then…