There is a “moral/legal” component to patent examination. You can’t patent a method of burglary, for example.
The “moral” component is interesting, if divorced from the legal. It could form the basis for removing patent protection for weapons or weapon enhancements on the one hand, or an innovation in birth control on the other. It’s odd that there would be a moral/legal component in any case. Either it’s intellectual property, or it isn’t, whether it would be used for immoral or illegal purposes, or not.
The morality/legal line varies. In the case of byurglary, for example, nearly all people agree burglary is both immoral and illegal. The patent law uses the word "useful," and precludes patenting something that is "illegal." The morality part is tougher to get a handle on. There are patents for all sorts of objects and practices that many consider immoral, including weapons of mass desctruction, sex toys (but I repeat myself), and products designed to mislead into harm.
Non-patentability on the "useful" prong is defined by the courts. A decent reference is at www.aippi.org/download/.../ForumSession9_Presentation_Kit_Gordon.pdf. A couple excerpts:
Under common law, in order for an invention to be "useful" for patentability purposes, an invention must "achieve a human purpose that is not illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy" (Callison v. Dean, 70 F2d 55, 58 (10th Cir. 1934)); Lowell v. Lewis, 15 F. Cas. 1018, 1019 (C.C.D. Mass. 1817)
- compound to poison people would not be not patentable
- gambling devices not patentable
However, Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc., 185 F3d 1364, 1366-68 (Fed. Cir. 1999) - sounded the deathknell for the moral utility requirement in the U.S. The U.S. Patent Office's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP S: 706.03(a)(II)), citing Juicy Whip, states unequivocally:
- A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy