« writing in public | Main | easily confused, part 37.8, subsection: the internet »
I've got some property in Florida you'd be interested in...
By way of Paperback Writer, a link to eMediaWire and a story about a guy who has applied to patent... a storyline.
A plot. He wants to patent his plot, so that nobody could ever use it again.
His name is Andrew F. Knight, and he's got a website. He also has a very odd way of looking at writing fiction.
...the value of a singer's performance or a dancer's performance or a writer's performance... in in the performance, while the value of an inventor's invention is in the invention, not a single instance, embodiment, expression, or performance of the invention. The value of a performance is in the performance, while the value of an inventor's invention is in the invention, not a single instance, embodiment, expression, or performance of the invention. The value of a performance is protected by copyright; the value of an invention is not. An artistic innovator is given but two choices absent patent protection: to sacrificially innovate for the unearened benefite of thieves, or to not innovate. Both options are morally and practically repulsive...(emphasis added)
There are so many things wrong with this that my husband says it's ridiculous to even consider it seriously, but then he's a mathematician and I deal in stories and emotion. So some things jump out at me.
First, the sentence above that I've highlighted: sacrifically innovate for the unearned benefit of thieves.
I sit here writing my novel, coming up with a plot as I go along. I'm both performer and inventor, in his way of looking at things, and I'm also stupid, sacrificing my creative drive for... oh yeah. I'm not doing this for nothing. I get paid. People pay me indirectly when they buy a book to read the story.
So that 'thievery' bit is, seems to me, a bit of overstatement. (And what's with the 'unearned benefits'? Because really, do thieves ever earn their benefits? Isn't that what thievery is about, not having to earn, but still getting the benefits?)
Unless Knight is talking about the situation where I'm sitting on a bus and I overhear somebody proclaiming outloud a wonderful storyline that has never, ever before been imagined in the world (which really, isn't likely because every plot out there can be reduced to one of a dozen or so basic plots, we all know this). But I run home and write a novel based on that storyline. Then I get the profit, and the originator of the storyline gets nothing.
And how often does this happen? Are there legions of plot inventors out there languishing for lack of payment?
Actually, it happens quite a lot. Any published writer will tell you about the dozens of time somebody comes up to them at a party and says, hey, bub, I've got this great idea for a novel. See, there's this farmer's daughter...
And the writer says, wow, yeah, let me know how that works out for you.
My point being that it's artificial and stupid to try to separate the two parts of the process, the story structure from the creation of the story.
For a lawyer and an inventor of storylines this guy isn't the greatest writer. And maybe that's the problem. He gets ideas, he can't do anything with them, how to get around that? He could sit down, butt to chair, with a pen and paper and get to work, see if he's got what it takes, or he could go to the patent office and try to sucker them into this skewed view of the world.
My understanding of patents is this: it's a measure to encourage invention. A temporary protection for the inventor so that in the long run, everybody profits. In this case, we've all been profiting from stories told for as long as we've had language to tell them. So really, no grounds for patent. None.
And beyond all that, I am reminded of Tom Sawyer convincing all his friends what a great honor it would be to paint that fence, and how little it will cost them to participate in that great opportunity.
November 4, 2005 11:12 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tiedtothetracks.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/594
Comments
Be advised that you will be hearing from the estate of Mr. Twain shortly re. your unauthorized usage of his "tricking others into painting the fence for you" invention.
Posted by: flamingbanjo at November 4, 2005 11:49 AM
This is absurd. I'm laughing (sort of) even as I fire off an email to this guy. This can't possibly fly, but if the U.S. Patent Office ever grants one of these, then I will know without a doubt this country has stepped completely through the looking glass.
Posted by: Suna at November 4, 2005 12:09 PM
As I understand it, at least when I got a COPYWRITE, it was for WRITTEN MATERIAL, software, etc. Also, as I understand it, patents are for THINGS, such as unique hunks of metal that do something novel, the operative word for patents. So he needs a patent lawyer (who'll probably suppress a giggle and send him on his way). Even copywrites aren't forever, they last for only 7 years.
Posted by: asdfg at November 4, 2005 01:29 PM
More commentary of interest on this story on boingboing.net today. Scroll down to Plotpatents.com headline, first one for Friday Nov 4 2005. (On the way down, see the story about scary variability in caffeine content of espresso... buyer beware!)
Posted by: robyn at November 4, 2005 05:45 PM
today's update (and WHAT a story it is!):
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Entertainment/OtherEntertainment/2005/11/05/1293920-sun.html
Posted by: robyn at November 6, 2005 06:18 PM
Previously I posted regarding Compana LLC's and Manila Industries use of our company name Liberty Natural Products as the domain name libertynaturalproducts.com.
Upon contacting Manila Industries, the domain name was transferred back to us in a timely fashion. I spoke with Greg Guillot the attorney for Manila Industries. He indicated to me their willingness to timely transfer domains back when it is a clear case of inadvertent infringement. He explained that Manila operates a computer program that identifies generic phrases and that any resulting infringements are not intentional.
I have also been told that Compana LLC was never the registrant of the domain name. Apparently, I misread the whois info and had thought they had initially registered it in their name. Hence my concerns about their relationship with Manila Industries and questions about legallity. While there may remaining questions as to the implications of using such a computer program on the part of Manila Industries that predictably infringes on tradenames/marks, Compana LLC was only acting as a registrar.
Posted by: Jim Dierking at February 15, 2006 10:48 AM
Jim, can you provide me with the contact info for the attorney for Manila Industries? I have a client with the same problem as you had, and I would like to arrange for a transfer of a domain name that includes our client's name.
Posted by: Roger Furey at March 2, 2006 07:32 AM
I would also like the contact for Manila Industry's attorney. I have the same problem with Manila backordering a domain name that was already in use, and registering ONLY the .com - then squatting on the name. The domain is just directed towards useless search sites.
Posted by: Michelle at March 26, 2006 11:43 AM