Expectations of record De Beers sales

[mike04456]

Expectations of record De Beers sales




"De Beers has already indicated a 10% target for price increases this year, having started with an increase at the first sight this year."




It''s my understanding that the increase for 2003 is due almost entirely to price increases, not increased volume. Supplies in the rough market lately have been very tight. De Beers'' long-term plan is to "grow" the diamond market by 50% over the next decade. Many analysts think this essentially means a 50% hike in prices since the volume is not really there to support such an increase in sales.

 

[Nicrez]

LawGem, quick question on patenting and copywriting...can a Process or a way of doing business be patented? Like if a person wanted to start a Gem Mobile and sell Diamonds off the back of a truck where it can travel TO you.

This is a hypothetical question in case you are frightened...

 

[weemodin]

We seem to get lots of patent questions on here, so here's the breakdown on what it takes for something to be patented:

There are five elements of patentability:
1. Patentable Subject Matter
2. Non-obviousness
3. Usefulness
4. No identical prior art; not anticipated by prior art
5. Disclosed and described by the applicant in such a way as to enable others to make the invention.

Some processes can be patented. For example, a process for extracting a certain type of chemical from a plant can be patented.

However, "a way of doing business" can't be patented because it's not patentable subject matter. Patentable subject matter includes "any process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or improvement thereof." You can't, however, patent mere ideas; rather, there must be soemthing concrete to be patented. Thus, business models can't be patented.

 

[Nicrez]

Hmmm... looks like weemodin means "patent guru" in diamond talk...

Thanks for humoring me! I now have won a bet, and I going to collect big!

Maybe I'll go out to McDonald's and buy a small fry!

 

[mike04456]

Good lord, talk about going off topic in a hurry.

----------------
On 2/4/2004 2:59:10 PM weemodin wrote:











However, 'a way of doing business' can't be patented because it's not patentable subject matter. Patentable subject matter includes 'any process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or improvement thereof.' You can't, however, patent mere ideas; rather, there must be soemthing concrete to be patented. Thus, business models can't be patented.
----------------

Uh, weemodin? I hate to break it to you, but you can indeed patent business methods. You're familiar with Amazon.com, I presume? Their "One-click" ordering method was issued a patent, believe it or not. It didn't used to be this way, but the law changed a few years ago as a result of a decision in the Federal Circuit. Since then, thousands of business methods (read: ideas) have gotten patents. To me, this is a horrible development that is going to backfire in a major way before long, but that's what the law is.

Regarding Nicez's idea, I would not rule anything out these days. Conceivably if you cast this as a "diamond distribution and retailing method," you might just be able to get a patent on it. Sillier things have gotten patents with the advent of the Internet, and a lot of these patent holders are getting ready to wreak havoc on internet businesses.

Intellectual property law used to be a means of protecting your investment from your competitors. These days, it's more and more being used to prevent competitors from doing business at all. This isn't what it was meant for.

Edited to add: Here's a good discussion of the issues, although I disagree with the conclusions:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/BMP/aipla_white_paper.pdf

 

[Nicrez]

Law Gem, thanks I just lost my McDee's fries....

But interesting that a business method can be patented. Not that I am going to open up a mobile Gme Mobile, but it was posed that new ways of doing business can be quickly copied, no matter how innovative, leaving the other starting party to lose profit by such competition. 'tis the American way to create something, work hard at it, and want to keep it exclusive to get the business you believe you deserve. C'est la vie...

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 2/4/2004 3:34:30 PM Nicrez wrote:





'tis the American way to create something, work hard at it, and want to keep it exclusive to get the business you believe you deserve. C'est la vie...

----------------

There's nothing wrong with patenting genuine innovations, and there are some business method patents that I think are valid. It's just that there are others that, to me, come perilously close to patenting an idea, which--supposedly--is something you can't do. But the boundaries of what is protected by patent and copyright seem to be expanding every year, in large part because of heavy lobbying by the business interests that have the most to gain.

One needs to recognize that IP law is a legal fiction: these are rights that are created out of whole cloth, and that restrict the ability of everyone else to express what they want and do business the way they choose. It's a policy decision made on the belief that creators of new ideas need certain protection to create and deserve a return on their efforts, but it needs to be balanced against the rights of everyone else. Lately that balance has been tipping heavily in favor of IP owners.

Sorry, but this question pushed one of my buttons.

 

[weemodin]

Ahh, I see that my information was out of date. Rats!
Just goes to show you shouldn't always trust your profs to keep abreast of current developments -- he just kept stressing the point that "ideas aren't patentable"
Nice to know. Seems like a big pain in the butt, though -- in these business model situations, independent invention is extremely likely, and it seems like the person who happens to file second gets royally screwed.

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 2/4/2004 3:55:56 PM weemodin wrote:





Seems like a big pain in the butt, though -- in these business model situations, independent invention is extremely likely, and it seems like the person who happens to file second gets royally screwed.

----------------

Which is exactly my point. You have a good future ahead of you, grasshopper.

 

[Mara]

You guys are way too smart for me.




mmmm McDonald's fries....




I actually love the idea of taking diamonds in a mobile. Besides the inherent security issues and INSURANCE costs...that would be alot of fun! Hee Hee.

 

[Nicrez]

Yes, and they could show diamonds, serve McDonald's Fries... you see?!

Weemodin and LawGem: obviously wise grasshoppers both. They speak grasshopper...I speak fries. Fries and Mobile Diamonds.

Thanks!!!

 

[HWin]

A patent offers a limited monopoly on non-abstract ideas. Non-abstract ideas include intangible subject matter. There is no modern case, statute, regulation, or rule that states that a patent can only be granted for something tangible. Patents cannot be granted for laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Mathematical algorithms, therefore, are not patentable subject matter. As was consistently held by the federal circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, a patent can be granted for "anything under the sun that is made by man." Ideas may be in the form of a process (i.e., method), machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. One of the seminal cases on business methods was State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 199, in which the Court held that there was no business method exception to what was statutory patentable subject matter. Therefore, any methods for doing business performed on computers or other tangible systems is patentable. As far as intangible subject matter goes, if the method involves some physical activity leading to a change in the intangible subject matter, then it is patentable (In re Shader, 22 F.3d 290 (Fed. Cir. 1994) addresses this issue). Selling diamonds from the back of a truck involves a change in possession, which is why it is patentable subject matter (although not necessarily novel and non-obvious). That is also why different types of securities products are patentable. There are a lot of other nuances, details, and exceptions, but for the most part, this is how the law currently stands.

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 2/4/2004 5:00:15 PM HWin wrote:





There are a lot of other nuances, details, and exceptions, but for the most part, this is how the law currently stands.
----------------

I understand all this--I just disagree with it.

 

[strmrdr]

Im going to patent the business model of creating diamonds from male cow droppings and getting a cleanup contract for political rallies for the raw materal.

It would probably be granted too wierder things have been.