Re: Re: Are patent drawings public domain?

I must be missing something here. (Alas, this would not be unusual.)

The reason a patent application includes drawings is to clarify factual claims about the device being patented. ¿Que No?

In which case, borrowing a bit from Bridgman v Corel, to the extent that a 2D work is no more than a factual representation of an otherwise uncopyrightable thing (the patentable and wholly utilitarian thing) then doesn't the drawing or at least any equivalent representation of the idea it expresses belong to the public domain. If someone includes Bart Simpson's picture in the patent application (with permission, I am sure) then that and all such frivolities should be freely "out-editable" by the public. The inclusion of such frivolities for the sole purpose of retaining copyright is sort of like someone embedding watermarks in public domain documents -- almost a sort of 506c violation, it would seem. Nimmer's opinion here makes sense to me.

I understand that this is probably way too simplistic, but isn't the donation to the public of the idea (after the patent expires) a part of the price of being granted a monopoly over the patented thing?

By the way how's that campaign coming for raising money for superfund cleanup of intellectual landfills of the future? Haven't heard much on that one recently.

David Dailey Received on Mon Apr 24 2006 - 23:25:01 GMT