Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors
Web Links

May 11, 2024, 6:27 pm UTC    
January 17, 2008 11:02AM
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick Baudé Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Katherine Griffis-Greenberg Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Rick Baudé Wrote:
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------


> > > > At the risk of playing "devils
> advocate"
> > a role I hate. Hawass and Egypt might be
> within
> > his rights. Not only that but the Egyptians
> > could file "design patents" on any and all
> > monuments (just like coca cola has a design
> patent on
> > their bottle. And McDonald's has or had a
> > patent on their french fry box, and Col.
> Sanders
> > had a patent on the recipe for his Kentucky
> > Fried Chicken.
> > >
> > > Which they all personally created.
> Neither
> > Hawass nor the modern Egyptians can
> copyright,
> > patent or trademark the ancient monuments, of
> which
> > they personally did not create. Period.
> Read
> > your law on this subject.
> >
> > I've read the law and reviewed hundreds of
> patents
> > and design patents, and I see nothing that
> > absolutely forbids them from patenting
> anything.
> > The patent office knows that the human
> imagination
> > is so breathtaking that they said you can
> patent
> > "Any assemblage of matter." The pyramids or
> the
> > sphinx for that matter the pyramids and the
> sphinx
> > would fall in that category, all they have to
> do
> > is figure out something unique like putting
> a
> > telescope in front of the sphinx and
> patenting "A
> > method for viewing and photographing ancient
> > Egyptian Monuments". Before you say it's
> > ridiculous, trust me I've researched absurd
> > patents and there's some lulu's out there.
> Would
> > it hold up?
>
> As I suspected you have glossed over my point
> completely.
>
I didn't mean to gloss over your point. What I was interested in was exploring the insanity of this proposal and how somebody might prevail. So, Okay let's get back to basics. I AGREE WITH YOU 100% anybody who thinks you can "copyright" any multi-K building is wrong. I frankly think that everybody in the world should have access (where it's convenient) to everybody elses cultural landmarks. The this "is our cultural heritage and you've got to pay to see it" is baloney IMHO.


> Agreed that anything can be patented but recall
> the following phrase that is included in any
> patent law: "...your invention..."
>
> Hawass and the modern Egyptian population did not
> "invent" the pyramids, nor did they personally
> originate the concept in their minds. Unless the
> PTO and other copyrighting organisations buy into
> collective race memory as a form of "mass
> invention", there's no way modern Egypt/ians can
> patent, copyright, or trademark any ancient
> monument in their own country.
>
> >I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it
> > would. For instance somebody once said
> "build a
> > better mousetrap and the world will beat a
> path to
> > your door." Will guess what there are over a
> > thousand patents on mouse traps, most of them
> some
> > variation on the snap trap. How about
> calendars?
> > Do you think that the patent rights to the
> > calendar ended 70 years after the death of
> Julius
> > Caesar? Not by a long shot, I found what
> looks
> > like about a thousand or so patents on
> Calendars
> > and all of them are some variation of the
> Julian
> > calendar.
>
> Considering that the present calendrical system is
> based upon the Gregorian calendar, your argument
> fails.

Well at the risk of being disingenuous I had a feeling that if I said Gregorian, you'd say it was a Julian calendar. Or if I said Julian you'd say Gregorian. So I picked Julian since it had priority to the Gregorian. But yes I know all of this.
At best, the Gregorian is a different
> system from the Julian, and at worst, it is an
> improvement - which requires original thought by
> its creator. Yet, the concept of time reckoning in
> a calendrical system is not patentable: it's an
> abstraction and abstractions are not patentable
> (see below).
>
> Further, the Julian calendar is based upon the
> calendars of the Egyptians, via the Ptolemies. So
> even Julius Caesar didn't own the "rights" to his
> own calendar system, as the Egyptians had already
> conceived of the 365 day year and the leap year
> day before Julius Caesar came along.
>
> The first vending machine was invented
> > over 2,000 years ago by Heron of Alexandria
> the
> > patents on that would have long expired.
> But
> > again there are thousands of patents on
> vending
> > machines today and more being filed all the
> time.
>
> What is being patented is the mechanism by which
> the product is dispensed to the consumer. You
> surely don't think that you today receive your
> Snickers bar by Hero's machine (not Heron)

Actually "Hero" and "Heron" seem to be fairly interchangeable in "Heroic/Heronic" studies. I prefer "Hero" since his name in the original Greek only had four letters in it, though I have a fifteenth century translation of his work into Italian where it's rendered "Herone". By the way while we're nitpicking here. IIRC In a previous post you said that Kentucky Fried Chicken changed their name to KFC because the state of Kentucky copyrighted the word "Kentucky" and KFC refused to pay the fee. That was an urban legend. But I decided to let it pass since your central point, that everybody's slapping copyrights on everything under the sun was right on the money.

where
> "a lever which opened up a valve which let some
> water flow out. The pan continued to tilt with the
> weight of the coin until it fell off, at which
> point a counter-weight would snap the lever back
> up and turn off the valve," do you?

No I don't. But I sure as hell, and I'm not joking, could see a patent attorney trying to overturn another patent because it uses this two thousand year old technology. I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on tv, like that other old joke goes) but like the old attorney's wheeze goes if you throw enough garbage on the wall something's going to stick. And I'll bet a lot of juries would go for it. If you were a patent attorney trying to overturn somebody elses patent would you let that one go? On the other hand if you were defending the patent would you fail to bring up Hero's original invention in your case to support your position that this was merely the latest twist on an invention with over 2K years of history behind it?
>
> For example, Hero's machine would not explain the
> multi-product vending machine which has to decide
> which product to dispense to you, or the various
> mechanical systems used to dispense (roll down,
> drop style, corkscrew, mixing style (for drinks),
> etc.). These are all patentable ideas which can
> be used within a vending machine system, but are
> the conceptions of individual persons or companies
> who created them.
>

I don't dispute any of that for a second.

> The orginal idea of a vending machine may belong
> to Hero, but no modern patent owner in the vending
> machine business owns anything more than
> improvements upon the mechanisms of delivery.
> Those would be considered innovations which
> improved an original concept and are, of course,
> patentable.
>
> > Don't forget we're not talking about some
> minor
> > pyramidiot who tries to patent the GP as a
> giant
> > water pumping system, we're talking about
> the
> > Egyptian Govt. who has the power and the
> resources
> > if they choose, to pursue a patent
> > fight. 
>
> I don't care who they are: IMO, any patent office
> worth their salt would turn down such a request as
> patently ridiculous (sorry, couldn't resist)

No problem I hit the low hanging fruit every chance I get.

since
> the requesters did not create the product for
> which they are applying for patent (or copyright
> or trademark).

I would hope they would too.

>
> Recall that the main premise of any intellectual
> property law is to allow you to own things you
> create in a similar way to owning physical
> property. You can control the use of your
> intellectual property, and use it to gain reward.
> Without it, no inventor would bother to create and
> patent his work if he didn't think he could
> somehow reward from it.

I agree 100% but copyright and patent law, IMO is being used to choke off invention innovation and creativity NOT to foster it. For instance my all time favorite was when John Fogerty got sued for violating copyright law because he had the "look and feel" of John Fogerty of Credence Clearwater Revival. Another record comapny had bought CCR's and decided to throttle John Fogerty and sued him, the result, he didn't produce a thing for ten years. Ultimately it was overturned. But ten years? If I had been the judge that case would have lasted 10 seconds.
>
> Further, since Hawass and the Egyptian government
> cannot claim they personally created pyramids or
> other ancient monuments in Egypt, any right to
> patent, copyright or trademark the ancient
> monument design would have expired after 15 -25
> years of creation, according to most countries'
> versions of intellectual property law. From the
> best of interpretations, their "design patent"
> expired millennia ago.
>
> I wrote:
> >> > Further, by now even the design of
> the
> > pyramid shape has also fallen into public
> domain in
> > > architectural terms.
> >
> > Perhaps, but with a design patents you can
> patent
> > they pyramid shape for your particular
> design.
> > Personally I think this is just another one
> of
> > Hawass's grandstanding gestures.
>
> From my understanding of intellectual property
> law, you cannot modernly patent the "pyramid
> shape" since its design has been within the public
> domain since at least the Roman period. You can
> provide an enhancement to the pyramidal design and
> patent that, but the original shape itself is not
> patentable in and of itself as an architectural
> design. Further, pyramid structures are not
> unique to Egyptian culture alone, as New World
> pyramidal structures developed independently of
> the Egyptian style, as did Chinese pyramidal like
> structures.
>
I tend to agree. However, I recall one design patent that was issued of a little mountain with a rock rolling away from the tomb of Jesus. So there might be some wiggle room in that.
> There's even more to consider: can the shape of a
> pyramid even be patented?
>
> Most pyramid structures are based upon an
> abstraction of the concept of mountains (a natural
> form), or possibly from observed natural
> phenomena, such as observing sunlight rays falling
> to earth in straight line points in such a way to
> create a pyramidal shape. In both cases, the shape
> had significance in the religious belief system of
> a culture, which is why the culture "mimicked" the
> shape in structures.
>
> There is an express position in intellectual
> property law that laws of nature, physical
> phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not
> patentable. So whether you consider the pyramid a
> mimic of a mountain, or an abstraction from
> observed sunlight shapes, neither is patentable.
>
> As the US Supreme Court noted in the case of
> Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303:
>
> "...The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and
> abstract ideas have been held not patentable. See
> Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978); Gottschalk
> v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); Funk Brothers
> Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130
> (1948); O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62, 112-121
> (1854); Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175 (1853).
> Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a
> new plant found in the wild is not patentable
> subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not
> patent his celebrated law that E=mc2.; nor could
> Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such
> discoveries are "manifestations of . . . nature,
> free to all men and reserved exclusively to none."
> Funk, supra, at 130."

This raises an interesting side question but would take us way, way, way off topic.

> So, is a replication of a mountain or an
> abstraction of a shape from observable phenomena
> patentable?
>
> All of the following are questions I'm sure would
> be raised if Hawass or the Egyptian government
> tried to "patent" the Pyramids:
>
> - Did they personally create the structures they
> wish to patent/copyright/trademark?
>
> - If not, are the creators of the structures in
> question able to trademark/copyright/patent (i.e.
> are they alive and able to register their
> intellectural property)?
>
> - Is the registration of intellectual property
> rights within the statute of limitations?
>
> - Is the design patentable (or is it an
> abstraction, derived from natural phenomena,
> etc.)?
>
> I think it could be effectively argued that in all
> cases, the answers to the above would be "no,"
> which would defeat any attempt to assert
> intellectual property rights over the structures
> of ancient Egypt, specifically the Pyramids.

All excellent questions. In closing. I agree with you 100%. I initially thought the idea was ludicrous. I have also seen in my lifetime how many utterly, ludicrous, completely bizarre ideas became reality. So bearing this in mind I thought it was premature to dismiss it out of hand. Which brought up my "devil's advocate" post. However, seeing how Hawass hasn't followed up with any other ideas, I think some copyright attorneys might have gotten hold of him. On the other hand maybe he just lost interest in it.
>
> My
>
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J. D.
>
> =================
However I find your disclaimer here disheartening that you have to protect yourself from possible litigation because of something you wrote here. On the other hand if somebody did cite this post, we could sue them for copyright infringement.

> DISCLAIMER:
>
> Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client
> relationship is created. This response is for
> discussion purposes only. It isn't meant to be
> legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek out
> an attorney in your own state who is familiar with
> your state's laws and applications thereof.


Subject Author Posted

No more copying

fmetrol December 25, 2007 05:34PM

Re: No more copying

Don Barone December 25, 2007 05:57PM

Re: No more copying

Greg Reeder December 25, 2007 11:48PM

Re: No more copying

Khazar-khum December 26, 2007 12:06AM

Re: No more copying

Greg Reeder December 26, 2007 12:49AM

DaveL's model of the Giza pyramids ...

Hermione December 26, 2007 04:36AM

Re: DaveL's model of the Giza pyramids ...

Greg Reeder December 26, 2007 09:04AM

Re: DaveL's model of the Giza pyramids ...

fmetrol December 26, 2007 09:30AM

Re: No more copying

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg December 26, 2007 04:10AM

Re: No more copying

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg December 26, 2007 04:34AM

Re: No more copying

Doug Weller December 26, 2007 01:16PM

Re: No more copying

fmetrol December 26, 2007 04:53AM

Re: No more copying

Khazar-khum December 26, 2007 12:23PM

Re: No more copying

Rick Baudé December 26, 2007 10:21PM

Re: No more copying

Rick Baudé January 21, 2008 10:26PM

Re: No more copying

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg January 22, 2008 03:43PM

Re: No more copying

Colette December 27, 2007 01:20AM

Re: No more copying

Rick Baudé January 03, 2008 11:17AM

Re: No more copying

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg January 16, 2008 03:40PM

Re: No more copying

Rick Baudé January 16, 2008 04:51PM

Re: No more copying

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg January 17, 2008 04:38AM

Re: No more copying

Rick Baudé January 17, 2008 11:02AM

Re: No more copying

Hermione January 17, 2008 11:32AM

Re: No more copying

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg January 18, 2008 04:10AM

Re: No more copying

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg January 18, 2008 05:42AM

Re: No more copying

Rick Baudé January 18, 2008 12:30PM

Re: Re-edited paragraph.

Rick Baudé January 18, 2008 01:41PM

Wiki wrong in many instances

Colette January 18, 2008 02:22PM

Re: Wiki wrong in many instances

Warwick L Nixon January 18, 2008 04:08PM

Re: Wiki wrong in many instances

Rick Baudé January 18, 2008 04:31PM

Re: No more copying

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg January 20, 2008 05:41AM

Re: No more copying

Hermione January 20, 2008 05:54AM

Re: No more copying

fmetrol January 20, 2008 07:27AM

Re: No more copying

Lee January 20, 2008 09:45AM

Re: No more copying

Rick Baudé January 20, 2008 10:28AM

Re: No more copying

Rick Baudé January 20, 2008 10:18AM

Re: No more copying

Lee January 20, 2008 11:07AM

Re: No more copying

Rick Baudé January 20, 2008 11:33AM

Re: No more copying

Lee January 20, 2008 11:36AM

Re: No more copying

Rick Baudé January 20, 2008 11:44AM

Re: No more copying

Rick Baudé January 20, 2008 03:21PM

Re: No more copying

Rick Baudé January 20, 2008 08:25PM

Re: No more copying

Lee January 21, 2008 10:56AM

Re: No more copying

Hermione January 21, 2008 11:10AM

Re: No more copying

Rick Baudé January 21, 2008 11:23AM

Re:Interesting No more copying

Colette January 21, 2008 01:56PM

Re: Re:Interesting No more copying

Rick Baudé January 21, 2008 02:36PM

Re: Re:Interesting No more copying

Colette January 21, 2008 02:41PM

Re: Re:Interesting No more copying

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg January 21, 2008 05:31PM

Re: Re:Interesting No more copying

Rick Baudé January 21, 2008 07:47PM

Re: Re:Interesting No more copying

Rick Baudé January 21, 2008 08:08PM

Re: Re:Interesting No more copying

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg January 22, 2008 03:32PM

Re: Re:Interesting No more copying

Rick Baudé January 22, 2008 01:56PM

**Sub-thread closed**

Hermione January 22, 2008 03:53PM

Re: No more copying

Lee January 23, 2008 11:18AM

Re: No more copying

Colette January 23, 2008 11:29AM

Re: No more copying

Rick Baudé January 23, 2008 11:43AM

Note

Hermione January 23, 2008 11:58AM

Re: Note

Rick Baudé January 23, 2008 12:20PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login