Can a Person Patent a Word or Phrase

[Voyager]

@Max Torque

Computer code normally is protected under copyright laws, being considered a “creative work”, just like a poem or a painting. However, computer code is one of the oddball situations where something can appear to be covered by two different kinds of intellectual property law. For example, Amazon’s “One-Click” ordering system was patented as a business method, but the code that actually makes the method possible is covered by copyright. But, it’s important to note that what is patented is not the code, but the business method. Once again, words aren’t patentable.

If a program that accomplishes a certain task is copyrighted, someone understanding the task (by looking at the running program and not the code) could reproduce the program in a clean room environment, and not be in violation. This used to be done all the time when companies copied instruction sets from another computer by writing a clean set of microcode to implement it.

If the process implemented by the code were patented, a clean room implementation would still be in violation. That’s a big difference.

[ENugent]

@DSYoungEsq

To the extent that the code represents a new idea (say, for example, a new computer programming language), it can be patented. It isn’t the code that is patented, but the idea.

And this is not quite an accurate statement, either. Ideas are not patented - new and useful machines, methods, and compositions of matter are. When you file a patent application for software, you typically claim it as a method of doing something, and as a machine running software encoding the method. It is possible that a person with a paper and pencil could infringe the method claim, but not the machine claim.

[DSYoungEsq]

@ENugent

And this is not quite an accurate statement, either. Ideas are not patented - new and useful machines, methods, and compositions of matter are. When you file a patent application for software, you typically claim it as a method of doing something, and as a machine running software encoding the method. It is possible that a person with a paper and pencil could infringe the method claim, but not the machine claim.

I was using loose shorthand to note that it was not the code but the concept (as enacted as a “method” if you will) that is patented. The intent was not to offer a complete treatise on patent law (in which even your statement is not totally accurate, as are few statements about intellectual property that don’t get qualified by about a chapter or two of very tricky explanation! ).

I think this answers Voyager’s question as well.

[Cardinal]

@DSYoungEsq

To the extent that the code represents a new idea (say, for example, a new computer programming language), it can be patented. It isn’t the code that is patented, but the idea.

This is how Amazon can successfully sue companies for using a “One Click” check-out method on their web site. It’s the idea that’s patented (although some say too many ticky-tacky things are being granted patents in software), so even though the code presumably wasn’t stolen, they’ve prevailed in court, IIRC.

[gonzomax]

Michael Buffer - Wikipedia! Trademark anyway.

[FRDE]

@Giles

Note that trade marks are tied to kinds of products, and often tied to partticular geographical areas. That’s how “Apple” can be a trademark both for a computer company and for a recorded music publisher.

If you mean Apple as in Steve Jobs and Apple as in the Beatles, there were problems a long time ago and it sounds as if they are back due to iTunes - OTOH it might just be both companies stirring up publicity.

[Giles]

@FRDE

If you mean Apple as in Steve Jobs and Apple as in the Beatles, there were problems a long time ago and it sounds as if they are back due to iTunes - OTOH it might just be both companies stirring up publicity.

Yes, that’s who I meant, and the convergence of media has made an increase in conflict pretty likely, whatever the TM owners wanted.

The “Apple” instance also illustrates that you can trademark a common English word that is already the name of a product that is bought and sold. However, if you are a grower, wholesaler or retailer who deals in apples, you can’t trademark “Apple” for your products. So I doubt if you could trademark “O.J.” as a brand of orange juice, since generic orange juice is already called that.

[ENugent]

@DSYoungEsq

I was using loose shorthand to note that it was not the code but the concept (as enacted as a “method” if you will) that is patented. The intent was not to offer a complete treatise on patent law (in which even your statement is not totally accurate, as are few statements about intellectual property that don’t get qualified by about a chapter or two of very tricky explanation! ).

I agree that intellectual property law is more than a bit confusing, but I think that it is worth pointing out that you don’t patent “ideas”. Those who believe that you do often think that the patent somehow prevents others from “thinking about” the “patented idea”, or researching in the area. What you can’t do is either build a machine that falls within the claims, or do all the steps of a patented method for method claims. But a method claim that involves nothing but “thinking” steps is generally an unpatentable algorithm. (Research is a bit of a thorny area since the Duke cases were decided, but a patentee still definitely can’t prevent anyone else from thinking what they wish.)

I’m also curious in what way you found my statement to be not totally accurate - I put that “typically” in there for a reason! (And for my own personal curiosity, are you a patent prosecutor?)