Court limits 'business method' patents

Oct 30, 2008  3:45 PM (ET)

BY DANIEL WAGNER
Associated Press

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20081030/D9450VC02.html



WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled against a man 
trying to patent a business idea, a decision with far-ranging implications 
for the financial services and high-tech industries, which have major 
players on both sides of the issue.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against Bernard 
Bilski, who wanted to patent a method for hedging against weather-related 
effects on businesses. Because his process did not involve a particular 
machine and did not physically transform anything, the court said, the 
process was not eligible for a patent.

Relying heavily on 1970s-era U.S. Supreme Court decisions that established 
the "machine-or-transformation test," Chief Judge Paul Michel wrote for a 
nine-judge majority that Bilski's patent application did not meet this 
definition of "process" under patent law.

The court affirmed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's denial of 
Bilski's patent, saying the agency's interpretation of the "process" was 
correct.

Consulting firm Accenture and banking company Goldman Sachs Group Inc., 
among others, believed that processes like Bilski's should be eligible for 
patents.

Denying the patent "eliminates a whole class of innovations from protection 
- business methods that rely on humans for execution," Accenture wrote in a 
fact sheet arguing for reversal of the patent office's decision.

But Bank of America Corp., Wachovia Corp. and a host of other companies 
argued in court briefs that allowing abstract ideas to be patented "hinders 
rather than promotes innovation."

Companies that rely on computer-related patents could take heart from the 
court's statement that processing data counts as "transformation," making 
them patent-eligible. But the court punted on the question of whether 
mentioning a computer is enough to argue that a process involves a machine.

Two judges filed long dissents, arguing the decision could disrupt 
industries operating with patents that could be affected by the decision.


=================================================
George Antunes                    Voice (713) 743-3923
Associate Professor               Fax   (713) 743-3927
Political Science                    Internet: antunes at uh dot edu
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77204-3011         

***********************************
* POST TO [email protected] *
***********************************

Medianews mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.etskywarn.net/mailman/listinfo/medianews

Reply via email to