Re: Anti-intellectualism in fandom

In article 
<93169b1c-6675-46d7-84aa-4cc9302c43ae@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Will in New Haven <bill.reich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> > Loses his patent too, even under the the stricter 19th century
> > definition of "useful." As Story said, you can't patent a pernicious
> > invention such as one to promote debauchery or private assassination.
> 
> What is pernicious about debauchery or private assassination?  Are you
> some kind of religious fanatic?

Ask Judge Story, not me.

---
All that the law requires is, that the invention should not be frivolous 
or injurious to the well-being, good policy, or sound morals of society. 
The word ³useful,² therefore, is incor****ated in the act in 
contradistinction to mischievous or immoral. For instance, a new 
invention to poison people, or to promote debauchery, or to facilitate 
private assassination, is not a patentable invention. 

(Lowell v. Lewis) 
---

What I  liked was "private."

Rickard v Du Bon, the context where I came across the quote, is a 
wonderful case. Rickard patents an invention. Du Bon infringes the 
patent. Rickard sues. Du Bon, in his defense, argues that the patent is 
invalid because the invention is not useful--under the 19th c. standard 
shown in the quote above. It isn't useful, is indeed pernicious, because 
the purpose of the invention is fraud. Since it's not useful it isn't 
patentable. Since it isn't patentable and the fraud in question is 
legal, B can do it too.

And B wins.

Who says the law is boring?

-- 
 http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
 Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
 Published by Baen, in bookstores now