Patenting A Method For Creating An Index Fund
from the out-of-control dept
As more and more areas are considered “patentable” you get some really bizarre patent attempts. Remember the patents on various tax strategies? Apparently some folks involved in the mutual fund business are getting into the act, trying to patent a method for creating fundamentally-weighted index funds. Clearly, without the patent system, such an idea would never have occurred to anyone.
Filed Under: index funds, mutual funds, patents
Comments on “Patenting A Method For Creating An Index Fund”
Business Method
In the absence of a copy of the application and what is attempting to be claimed, it seems a bit premature for others to suggest that the “sky is falling”. If there is a lot of prior art, then whatever may issue will most certainly be of very limited scope.
false advertising?
This is not an index fund – in fact it sounds a lot like “What Works on Wall Street” with its emphasis on low Price/Sales ratios.
It may even be false advertising for these folks to market this as an “index” fund.
More BS from Mikey
Why should legitimate small inventors and holders of valid patents on novel and useful technical inventions be constantly embarrased by the anti-patent rethorics of corporate PR hacks like Mike Masnick who hasn’t invented squat in his lifetime ?
Is this part of a big plan by your corporate masters ?
Tell us Mikey…
Re: More BS from Mikey
You say a lot and yet nothing comes out.
Re: Re: More BS from Mikey
Hey punk
patent “deform” of 2005 then 2006 then 2007 going all the way to April of 2008 has been finally taken off the Senate floor agenda…
Nothing comes out ?
Huh
Re: Re: Re: More BS from Mikey
Well, perhaps not.
Though perhaps they ducked because the courts, who opened up this little pandora’s box of anything is patentable, seem to be having second thoughts and finally saying enough is enough, thank you very much.
Novel and useful? In the absence of the actual patent application is seems like they’re trying to patent what any decent mutual fund should be doing anyway. Hardly novel. Useful? I guess we’ll find out.
ttfn
John
Re: More BS from Mikey
Why should legitimate small inventors and holders of valid patents on novel and useful technical inventions be constantly embarrased by the anti-patent rethorics of corporate PR hacks like Mike Masnick who hasn’t invented squat in his lifetime ?
So many incorrect things in a single statement. What does embarrassment have to do with anything. We’re just pointing out how the patent system is harming, rather than helping innovation — something you’ve never once tried to counter with any actual evidence.
Second, I’m not and never have been, in the corporate PR business. This has been pointed out to you in the past, and you’ve even admitted that you lied about out of anger — and yet you keep doing it.
Third, I have done plenty of innovative things, including building up a successful business that contributes economically to society, while also helping many businesses better innovate as well. The overall impact of our business has resulted in widespread economic growth in this country and around the world. What have you done? And, for the record, angry dude has lied in the past about owning multiple patents, and then a year or so after saying that claimed that he’d just received his first patent — though he refuses to tell us what that patent is for.
Angry dude, we’ve asked you in the past for some very simple things: rather than merely insult everyone, actually back up what you have to say. You’ve refused. We’ve asked you to stop lying. You’ve refused.
I’m trying to figure out how you can think that your argument is more credible when you fail to even take the most basic steps towards backing it up.
Re: More BS from Mikey
So tell us, genius, exactly what is technical about this? You should quit posting on here, and go back to masturbating to National Geographic in your mother’s basement.
Re: Re: More BS from Mikey
Where does the patent law is there a requirement that an invention be “technical”? In US, there is no such requirement. In Europe they require a technical effect, or some aspect of technology. Note “technology” comes from two Greek words, transliterated techne and logos. Techne means art, skill, craft, or the way, manner, or means by which a thing is gained. Logos means word, the utterance by which inward thought is expressed, a saying, or an expression. So, literally, technology means words or discourse about the way things are gained. Now, does a new idea, financial or otherwise, sound like it could be included in discourse about the way things are gained?
Re: More BS from Mikey
Of course neither have the so-called ‘inventors’ discussed here invented squat in their lifetime.
Angry Dude may be angry, but he isn’t very good at making such critical distinctions.
Re: More BS from Mikey
pffffftt!
More BS from Mikey by angry dude
Wow, I dont know where to begin. So no one should comment, report, or analyse patents and inventions because they haven’t “invented squat in [their] lifetime”? You are, of course, an expert on everything, right? So you are qualified to comment on everything by your own argument, right? You yourself have made a “novel and useful technical invention” correct? If not, then you defeat your own criticism, QED. Sorry, fail, try again.
angry dude is a troll
a.d. is just trying to get us all riled up. He is either a lonely troll (a persistent one at that) or a patent hoarding company’s shill since they don’t really have a good justification for suing true inventors/implementors except for money they don’t deserve.
Re: angry dude is a troll
Our local troll is insulted that you’re lumping him in the same group as angry dude.
"There are some things...
it is impossible to parody. Today’s attempt at parody is tomorrow’s design document.”
–Wiz Zumwalt
"There are some things...
it is impossible to parody. Today’s attempt at parody is tomorrow’s design document.”
–Wiz Zumwalt
Mmmm ... PB&J
As I sat there eating a PB&J I wondered whether I was violating some hard working inventor’s property.
Hey – waddayaknow, maybe I will avoid a prison sentence.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7432980
Trolls and other sub-bridge dwellers
I am surprised how many people have jumped on the “troll” term bandwagon. Let me see, if you are a “good inventor” then you are defending your rights, but if you are a “bad inventor” then you are a troll, somehow evil and undeserving of your royalty.
TI sold its memory business, but kept its memory patents and then sued all the memory companies, is it a troll now?
IBM obtained patents on operating system features and now no longer sells OS/2, if it asserts its rights for its patents against Microsoft, is it now an evil troll?
Give me a break…it seems many ascribe to a philosophy of “if I have a patent, it must be good and valid, and if someone else has a patent, it must be invalid and they are a troll;” this oversimplification makes no sense to me, and adds nothing of value to the discourse on the disclosure incentive system that is the US patent system. Let the good gentleman make his case to the USPTO, and if allowable, let him get his patent.
newest jordan shoes
I found so many interesting stuff in your blog especially its discussion. From the tons of comments on your articles, I guess I am not the only one having all the enjoyment here!