posted
None of his claims are valid claims with respect to either form or content. This will be dinged quickly ("quickly" being a relative term at the PTO).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Claim 1 is proved via David Copperfield, who has been using godly powers for his financial gain (MN Federal case 05-446JRT/FLN) and hiding knowledge of godly powers as stated in claim 7.
What is this refering too? Is that a real case and is there a way to look it up? Google only linked back to the patent.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they grant him a patent, does he become financially liable for all those items insurance companies ascribe to "acts of God"?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Claim 1 is proved via David Copperfield, who has been using godly powers for his financial gain (MN Federal case 05-446JRT/FLN) and hiding knowledge of godly powers as stated in claim 7.
What is this refering too? Is that a real case and is there a way to look it up? Google only linked back to the patent.
My brother just sent me the case. Let me see if I can find a link. Meanwhile, check out the loonie's site.
Here's an exerpt from the footnotes. Apparently, Roller took some of it down from his site:
quote:Defendant respectfully urges the Court to visit Plaintiff’s website, www.mytrumanshow.com, to which the Plaintiff refers both the Court and Defendant. Therein Plaintiff makes the following claims including:
Plaintiff is running for President of the United States in 2008 with Bill Gates as his running mate.
Plaintiff claims he is Jesus Christ.
Plaintiff claims he is God.
Plaintiff claims that Katie Couric and Celine Dion are his wives and are going to have his children.
Plaintiff claims there is a movie coming out soon about his life that stars Tom Hanks.
Plaintiff claims he has killed all of his enemies.
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: If they grant him a patent, does he become financially liable for all those items insurance companies ascribe to "acts of God"?
Thats EXACTLY what I thought. I am not sure whether his debts or profits would be greater in such a circumstance.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. It's hard to believe that an attorney actually had to write out a full, serious case report for this. I wonder if that was annoyingly tedious or amusingly entertaining for them?
I also like how one of the reasons for dismisal was that "Godly Powers" was not in Minnesota's jurisdiction. Do you think it would be in SCOTUS's jurisdiction? The UN's? Should we develope a legal system for that would include this? I think we should.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also like how one of the reasons for dismisal was that "Godly Powers" was not in Minnesota's jurisdiction. Do you think it would be in SCOTUS's jurisdiction?
Depends on how activist one thinks the court should be.
(And not to ruin the joke, but patents give a person the right to exclude others from the exercise of a particular invention. They don't create liability.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
