I'm speechless.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
We better hurry then. There're only about a dozen storylines being used today.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
So what would fall into the scope of infringement of his patent? Certainly not all "zombie" stories. What about a similar story where the zombie state was not an answer to prayer but because of some scientific experiment? In short, what degree of similarity must be reached before it constitutes infringement?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Remember, he hasn't been granted anything yet. 18 months after one files a patent application, it's published. At this point, provisional rights attach.
If the application is ultimately denied, those rights mean nothing.
I'd like to see the actual patent.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Well, for one thing, this plot sounds very similar to 13 Going On 30 .
Storylines should not be patentable. Patents are for inventions (not in the loosest sense where an invention is anything a human makes in any sense), not (among other things) abstract ideas. Just as no one can patent e=mc^2, no one can patent a plot twist.
Copyright is the mechanism for that.
Even looking at the patent application, the first claim, among others, is already completely covered by 13 going on 30, and I suspect by numerous other works.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Patents are an iffy proposition in the best of cases. Consider the telephone, for example. Elisha Gray (from my hometown of Highland Park, IL) invented the telephone. But Alexander Graham Bell got to the patent office first. Why should Gray have been prevented from profiting from the fruit of his creative mind? And that's leaving aside the fact that the phone in Bell's patent didn't even work, and Gray's did.
There's this person in the Chicago area who is going around copyrighting everyday terms. That's as dumb as this.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps you mean trademarking everyday terms? Copyright can't be used on something which is an everyday term, and wouldn't be granted (edit: that is, wouldn't be allowed to be registered; if a work is copyrightable, its automatically copyrighted upon creation).
[ November 04, 2005, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Perhaps you mean trademarking everyday terms? Copyright can't be used on something which is an everyday term, and wouldn't be granted (edit: that is, wouldn't be allowed to be registered; if a work is copyrightable, its automatically copyrighted upon creation).
Yep. I meant trademarking.
Check this out. This guy and the plot patenter should be locked up in the same loony bin.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Well, for one thing, this plot sounds very similar to 13 Going On 30 .
...which, of course, was just a rip-off of Big.
Posted by unicornwhisperer (Member # 294) on :
It sounds a little like "Forever Young" too. Just a smitch.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I'm going to write a screenplay in which a kid prays to be a zombie until his college application letter comes, then wakes up 29 years later and realizes he's been a zombie all this time. And the college will be, get this, Harvard. And I'm going to call it The Zombie Gaze. There's no way that could be mistaken for the same story. It's airtight.
Well, other than the part where it still sucks and will never sell. Aside from that, though, it's golden.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It was not a ripoff of Big!
For one thing, Big was about a guy! 13 Going on 30 was about a girl, and it had a Michael Jackson dance-off scene (which was strangely absent from Big).
Sheesh! It's like no one else even watched the movies.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: and it had a Michael Jackson dance-off scene (which was strangely absent from Big).
But does it beat the ultimate michael jackson dance off.
edit: for some reason, I'm having trouble with the URL tag.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)