Re: Anti-intellectualism in fandom

In article 
<0f0cf522-6a86-48c0-8233-2adfca44b97c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Will in New Haven <bill.reich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> On Feb 10, 5:03 pm, David Friedman <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <93169b1c-6675-46d7-84aa-4cc9302c4...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >  Will in New Haven <bill.re...@[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?
> 
> That is hilarious. What did the invention DO?

Speckle tobacco.

Speckled tobacco, for cigars, came from places that produced high 
quality tobacco, so although the speckling itself didn't affect quality, 
it signaled it. Rickard's invention was a process for speckling 
tobacco--making it look like the high quality stuff. Intended to fool 
consumers, but perfectly legal.

Then there's the modern case where the judge concluded that, legally 
speaking, the house was haunted.

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