Patently absurd...
Snaggy,
A patent agent friend of mine sent me the following after he saw your latest cartoon. (I am sending because he didn't want his name on it. He didn't want the appearance of giving legal advice.) Don't you just love lawyers?

Regards,

Grant

FROM THE PATENT AGENT (ATTORNEY): If�the lungfish did not patent the claimed invention, he has no basis for a suit.� Even assuming�a patent could have been obtained by some prehistoric patent office (assuming for the sake of argument that the prehistoric office was�still governed by US law), 35�U.S.C. section 101 clearly defines what does and does not constitute patentable subject matter.� A 1980 US Supreme Court decision, albeit providing for a broader scope of patentable protection than had been previously known,provided additional�clarification on what is patentable under � 101.� The lungfish needs to take special note�on this point.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty held that microorganisms produced by genetic engineering are not excluded from patent protection by 35 U.S.C. 101. It is clear from the Supreme Court decision and opinion that the question of whether or not an invention embraces living matter is irrelevant to the issue of patentability. The test set down by the Court for patentable subject matter in this area is whether the living matter is the result of human intervention.� In view of this decision, the Office has issued guidelines as to how 35 U.S.C. 101 will be interpreted.

The Supreme Court made a particular point in the Chakrabarty opinion that relates to our friend, the lungfish:

"This is not to suggest that �101 has no limits or that it embraces every discovery. The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable."

Therefore, not only did the lungfish fail to provide basis (in the form of a patent), but, in light of�Chakrabarty, it seems highly unlikely that such a patent would have�everbeen granted.� Even if the Court had not�rendered the�Chakrabarty�opinion,�the lungfish would still be statutorily barred from a patent under 35 U.S.C., section 102(b)"

"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ... (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States ..."

Therefore, our lungfish has little recourse than to slip quietly back into the sea, to�only occasionally�come forth onto the beach, bask in the sunlight and gulp air while practicing his non-patentable invention.

as usual, NitroZac is way ahead of the game