1 / 28

Business Method Patents (in historical and economic context)

Business Method Patents (in historical and economic context). William Fisher July 4, 2002. Types of Patents. Utility -- §101 et seq. Plant -- §161-64 Design -- §171-73. 95%. 5%. § 101. Inventions patentable.

niveditha
Télécharger la présentation

Business Method Patents (in historical and economic context)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Business Method Patents(in historical and economic context) William Fisher July 4, 2002

  2. Types of Patents • Utility -- §101 et seq. • Plant -- §161-64 • Design -- §171-73 95% 5%

  3. § 101. Inventions patentable “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

  4. Atomic Weapons Parts (1954) Laws of Nature Abstract Ideas Software Surgical Procedures Surgical Procedures Printed Matter Machines Chakrabarty Products Animals Processes Compositions of Matter PPA (1930) Business Methods PVPA (1970) Business Methods Manufacture Plants PbP Genes Genes Pioneer Hi-Bred (2000) Athletic Moves? Naturally Occurring Substances Purified & exhibiting new qualities

  5. Business Method Patents • For most of 20th century, BMPs assumed unavailable because “abstract ideas” • Hotel Security (1908) • Sterling (1934) • Wait (1934) • Patton (1942) • Loew’s Drive-In (1949) • Murray (1988)

  6. Business Method Patents • For most of 20th century, BMPs assumed unavailable because “abstract ideas” • 1990’s: PTO quietly begins granting BMPs • 1996: PTO guidelines directs patent examiners to treat BMPs like other process patents • 1998: State Street Bank (CAFC); SCt denies cert.

  7. State Street Bank Mutual Fund 1 Mutual Fund 2 11% 30% Mutual Fund 3 Individual Investor 25% Investment Portfolio partnership Mutual Fund 5 14% 20% Mutual Fund 4 Data Processing System

  8. State Street Holdings • Transformation of data by a machine into a final share price constitutes a practical application of an algorithm and is therefore patentable subject matter • Repudiate the “business-methods” exception to patentability

  9. Business-Method Patents: Rates • 1998: • 1300 applications • 420 patents issued • 2000 • 7500 applications • 1000 patents issued

  10. Examples of Business Methods Patents • Merrill Lynch “Cash Management Account” (4,346,442 – 1982) • Online Support System (5,806,043 – 1998) • Priceline.com (5,794,207 – 1998) • “Single click” ecommerce checkout (5,960,411 – 1999) • Amazon v. Barnes & Noble (WD Wash., Dec. 1999) • Reversed (CAFC Feb. 2001) • Behavioral Profiling (5,848,396 – 1998) • Prepaid cellular calls (6,157,823)

  11. Behavioral Profiling (5,848,396) • Abstract: Computer network method and apparatus provides targeting of appropriate audience based on psychographic or behavioral profiles of end users. The psychographic profile is formed by recording computer activity and viewing habits of the end user. Content of categories of interest and display format in each category are revealed by the psychographic profile, based on user viewing of agate information. Using the profile (with or without additional user demographics), advertisements are displayed to appropriately selected users. Based on regression analysis of recorded responses of a first set of users viewing the advertisements, the target user profile is refined. Viewing by and regression analysis of recorded responses of subsequent sets of users continually auto-targets and customizes ads for the optimal end user audience.

  12. Behavioral Profiling (5,848,396) • Inventor: Gerace; Thomas A. (Cambridge, MA) • Assignee: Freedom of Information, Inc. (Cambridge, MA) • Filed: April 26, 1996 • Issued: 1998

  13. Patent # 6,157,823 • Issued 12/5/2000 • “A cellular telecommunications system having a security feature which allows only pre-authorized users to complete cellular telephone calls. The system and method recognizes a cellular radiotelephone's pre-programmed a[nd] pre-selected telephone number and a automated number identification code (ANI). The pre-selected telephone number is reserved to the pre-paid cellular telecommunications system. The cellular radiotelephone transmits the ANI and a dialed number identification system code (DNIS) to a cellular switch, which contacts a host computer for call validation by the pre-paid service provider.”

  14. Patent Requirements • Subject-Matter Coverage • Novelty • Nonobviousness • Utility • Enablement

  15. Graham Factors • Scope and content of the prior art • Differences between prior art and claims • Level of ordinary skill in the prior art • Secondary (“Objective”) factors: • commercial success • long-felt, unsolved needs • failure of others • industry acquiescence • suggestions in prior art • fact that defendant chose to copy

  16. Applied to Amazon E-commerce limited to shopping carts Dramatic step forward Very popular Prior art taught against It Barnes copies Graham Factors • Scope and content of the prior art • Differences between prior art and claims • Level of ordinary skill in the prior art • Secondary (“Objective”) factors: • commercial success • long-felt, unsolved needs • failure of others • industry acquiescence • suggestions in prior art • fact that defendant chose to copy

  17. Tightening the Standards • AIPA (1999): • Prior-use defense for BM patents • Study of BM patents by GAO • 2000 PTO guidelines for BM Patents: • Hiring more specialized examiners • Updating databases to include relevant “nonpatent literature” (NPL) • Mandatory second exam • Proposed BM Patent Improvement Act: • Formal post-grant opposition procedure • Invalidity requires only “preponderance of the evidence” • Presumption of obviousness for computer implementation of extant BMs • Public may submit prior art

  18. European Initiatives • EPC articles 52(2) and 52(3) prevent patenting of “methods of doing business” “as such” • Case law: BMs with a “technical aspect” or that solve a “technical problem” are patentable • Fall 2000: Member countries decline to revise EPC as applied to software or BMs • Power of EuroLinux Alliance • Individual country “consultations” are ongoing • March 2001: British government recommends no change • 8/31/2001: EPO revises guidelines: BMs are patentable only if they are of a “technical nature” or implicate a “concrete apparatus”

  19. Examples of European BMPs • System for determing the queue sequence for serving customers at a plurality of service points • A system that determines which customers are to be served at which counter. The system takes user preferences for particular counters into account. Solves the problem of how to provide an apparatus that can pool counters so that one common customer queue can be employed. • EP 086 199, filed 20.07.1981, granted 04.08.1987 • Credit management for electronic brokerage system • An automated trading system for stocks and shares, which can correlate bids and offers from anonymized counterparties, and filter out undesirable ones. • EP 625 275, filed 03.02.1992, granted 16.04.1997. • Factory network having a plurality of factories and method of coordinating same • A factory chain in which a factory tailors its production plan based on a planning received from a factory further in the chain. Solves the problem of how to coordinate demand and supply part relationships in such a chain. • EP 752 134, filed 28.09.1994, granted 07.04.1999. • Source: engelfriet2001

  20. Japanese Initiatives • JPL 29(1) limits patents to “industrially applicable” inventions • JPL 32 prohibits patenting of inventions “liable to contravene public order, morality, or public health” • JPO Examination Guidelines (January 2001): • To be patentable, an invention must use either hardware or a “law of nature” • Firm enforcement of “inventive step” requirement

  21. Possible Responses to Public-Good Character of Innovation • Government engages in innovation • e.g., NIH; NASA • Government subsidizes innovation in private sector • e.g., basic scientific research; NEA • Government issues post-hoc rewards to innovators • cf. Shavell & Ypersele on patents • Government facilitates concealment of innovation • Trade-secret law • Government issues intellectual-property rights

  22. Disadvantages of IPRs • Administrative Costs • Impediments to Cumulative Innovation • Deadweight Loss associated with loss of consumer surplus

  23. $ Consumer Surplus A Monopoly Profits Figure 1: Economic Effects of Profit-Maximizing Pricing of an Intellectual-Property Right 2 Deadweight Loss (foregone consumer surplus) D B 1 Demand Profit-maximizing price 3 G E Marginal Cost C E O I Quantity F H Profit-maximizing output

  24. Guideline • IPRs should be created only in circumstances in which their benefits • (discounted present value of innovations stimulated) • exceed their costs • (administrative costs; • impediments to cumulative innovation; • deadweight losses)

  25. Applied to Business-Method Patents • Little evidence that patent protection is necessary to stimulate innovation in BMs • Serious disadvantages • High transaction costs (recent PTO reforms) • Large deadweight losses • Impediments to cumulative innovation BM Patents should be repudiated

  26. Patent #5,616,089 A method of putting features the golfer's dominant hand so that the golfer can improve control over putting speed and direction. The golfer's non-dominant hand stabilizes the dominant hand and the orientation of the putter blade, but does not otherwise substantially interfere with the putting stroke. In particular, a right-handed golfer grips the putter grip with their right hand in a conventional manner so that the thumb on the right hand is placed straight down the top surface of the putter grip. The golfer addresses the ball as if to stroke the putter using only the right hand. Then, the golfer takes the left hand and uses it to stabilize the right hand and the putter. To do this, the golfer places their left hand over the interior wrist portion of the right hand behind the thumb of the right hand with the middle finger of the left hand resting on the styloid process of the right hand. The golfer presses the ring finger and the little finger of their left hand against the back of the right hand. The golfer also presses the palm of the left hand against the putter grip and squeezes the right hand with the left hand. The golfer then takes a full putting stroke with the above described grip.

  27. Patent #5,616,089

  28. Atomic Weapons Parts (1954) Laws of Nature Abstract Ideas Software Surgical Procedures Surgical Procedures Printed Matter Machines Chakrabarty Products Animals Processes Compositions of Matter PPA (1930) Business Methods PVPA (1970) Business Methods Manufacture Plants PbP Genes Genes Pioneer Hi-Bred (2000) Athletic Moves? Naturally Occurring Substances Purified & exhibiting new qualities

More Related