Haaa! Now THAT is an extreme Parrot Head hat. Nice.

Ahhhh..Boat Drinks…a classic…and a tune way up there on my list of Buffet faves…I just sent you a goosebump-ish email, Mr. Bruce.

Kevin, this is Dr. Jimmy Buffet. I’m recommending that you hop a plane south for St. somewhere and consume six boat drinks per day til spring. : )

I think I’ve got this down..thanks guys…

so….a really smart criminal…say a giant bank heist criminal, or the white collar, check kiting, banker or investment banker, could, once caught, sue the press (who soo diligently publish the step by step details of how to complete these crimes (up to the getting caught part) once the how-to manual is printed or otherwise divulged? Because they have, indeed provided the criminal’s improved business method…and the key would have to be that the criminal patented the “new and improved” method. And if future criminals use the step by step process in their “business” and Criminal A learns of the breach, he/she could sit back in his/her cell and sick his attorney on the breach.

Always wondered how to stop the press from suggesting the STEP BY STEP way to complete past crimes, for all to “learn” from.

hmmmm. Extreme, but it could apply. But I guess getting that “Method of doing Business” would be tricky. That would be a fun envelope to open at the USPTO if employed there. hahahaha

Agreed – As mentioned in my previous post, I too encourage the use of at least one method claim with any type of Utility patent claim(s) as it tends to broaden what covered. While of course a method of doing business is not the same as an apparatus, chemical composition (or plant)it does consist of at least one method claim (or more), and the structure and purpose of a method claim is the same regardless of the type of patent (method or otherwise).

pretty well read, Luis, If I may say so…lol and I appreciate what you brought this evening

That is a good clarification. KJ. But while not in the first hierarchy of the patent types (Utility/Design/Plants), the distinction does exist. And there is indeed what is called a “Method of Doing Business” patent which, as you point out do fall in the utility category.

Please see: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/methods/...

A method of doing business is not the same as an apparatus, or chemical composition, which are also utility patents.

On the other hand, a method of doing business type of patent, should not be equated to method claims. Method claims, while apppearing the only kind possible in ‘Method of Doing Business’ patents are not exclusive of this type of documents. Method claims can (and IMHO) are advisable in any utility patent in addition of structure claims.

Again, these are my lay-person opinions. I am not an agent or an attorney.

Greg is right, to further clarify….a “method of doing business patent” IS a utility patent. There really is no such thing as a “method of doing business” patent… it consist of at least one (usually more) “method” claim within a “Utility” patent.

I agree Darwin. You people are the best.
This is very helpful.
Thanks to you all.

I love the way these forums can make you learn how little you know. Great reading, thanks everyone

Greg, as you may know I am Not an attorney or Patent agent. I just love this stuff.

A method of doing business patent or patent application is not the same as a method (claim) of using a utilitary device. A method claim relates to the mode of operating or implementing a thing, an, object an invention. It is a twist to the structure described in the patent application.

For instance claim 1 recites:

>>>A clamp, comprising: (then you list the elements of your invention)

Then, as you want to broaden the scope of the protection (and the interpretation(s)), a subsequent method claim recites exactly the same thing as claim 1, in terms of the mode of implementation, so it goes something like:

>>>A clamping method, comprising the steps of: (then you list all the steps that enable your new clamp to render a better/cheaper/improved function.

A (NEW) method of doing business is typically a step-by-step scheme to achieve improved/better/cheaper ways to conduct business or perform services.

Your trash example, appears certainly as a NEW method of doing business. I don’t know much about this, but I wonder how you detect/enforce/deter infringement and recover damages, as the infringement is not so readily evident as it is in a tangible product.

I mean, if a competitor, trying to lure customers by bragging about the cleverness of his operation, voluntarily lists the steps, you’ll have a clear case of infringement. Otherwise it would be up to you to detect and prove what the guy is doing. It might be doable, but a little harder than conventional patents.

Hope this helps.

Greg

I believe Louis Foreman of EN has filed a patent on the way this site operates so maybe he’s the guy to ask?

I’m sure others will chime in, but (the short answer) if the method is in fact useful and novel by USPTO standards, then like any other utility patent it will give you the right to take action if infringed. There are a few more hurdles to overcome with such patents due to recent rulings, but they are still viable.

I encourage you to read up on the issue; including the subject of “inducement” which many people overlook when it comes to such patents. Also, you should consider the likelihood of your ability to know of and/or prove if infringement actually occurs to determine the value of a method patent.

BTW – Method claims tend to have broader coverage in comparison to typical “utility” claims. I personally believe that all utility patent applications should have at least one method type claim.

My two cents.

I will try, when I interviewed my current patent attourney, I asked for a couple copys of her work. One of the was so high tech I didn’t even try to read it. The other was very interesting but not high anything.

I asked her about it, what is it you patented I asked? The proceedure, she said. I said, patent my proceedure also. She did.