Talk:Business method patent

Patentability of electromagnetic signals

In the recent guidelines on patentable subject matter that the USPTO has issued, the have reiterated their position that electromagnetic signals per se, do not fall into one of the four classes of patentable subject matter. None the less, they have asked for comments from the public. Below are arguments FOR the patentabiliy of electromagnetic signals. There is also room for arguments against patentability. Wiki editors are invited to contribute and enhance both sets of arguments.--Nowa 21:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Electromagnetic signals are not business methods, so they sohould not be discussed here. They are a concept from electrical engineering. Rbakels (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Arguments FOR the patentabilty of electromagnetic signals

It protects US commerce. With off-shoring common, it is necessary to prevent the importation of objects manufactured by processes protected by US patents. Electromagnetic signals are what computers produce. If signals were patentable, then inventors could demand a license for the importation of said signals into the US. Thus infringers could not get around a patented computer implemented process merely by locating the computer outside the US and then transmitting the results of a computation (e.g. electromagnetic signal) into the US.

Electromagnetic signals are judicially determined to have physical substance. The author of the guidelines quotes Alappat wherein it states that a smooth waveform is “ ‘a useful, concrete, and tangible result’ “. A smooth waveform is one example of an electromagnetic signal. Electromagnetic signals, therefore, have physical substance (e.g. concrete, tangible) within the meaning of the law.

An artificially produced electromagnetic signal meets the judicially accepted definition of manufacture.

The author quotes Diamond v. Chakrabarty for a definition of a manufacture:

“The production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery”

As indicated above, an electromagnetic signal with certain defined physical properties is both concrete useful and tangible. It is therefore an article for use. The raw materials for a manufactured electromagnetic signal can be, for example, a carrier wave with no signal encoded. Said carrier wave is modified to produce the desired manufactured signal. The new signal has new properties, such as content and structure. These new properties are readily detectible, such as by a modem attached to a computer. The manufactured signal is produced by a machine, such as a computer.

Arguments AGAINST the patentability of electromagnetic signals

Have at it.

How about that the Federal Circuit has upheld the decision of the PTO that signals are patent-ineligible and the Supreme Court has denied certiorari. See In re Nuitjen, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.26.115 (talk • contribs)

Controversy over current degree US business method patent availability

This article lacks an info on the debate in the US over the kinds of business method patents current be handed out. For example, Amazon.com One-click patent has been used as a example of a claimed problem with current patent law as it pertains to business methods. Their are US patent law critics who argue that business method patents should be restricted to a greater degree then they currently are in the US. Some even go so far as to argue they be prohibited outright. I am not fully versed on the arguments for and against the current state of business method patent availability but someone who is should add something on the controversy and debate. --Cab88 10:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cab88, thank you for your comments. A good place to discuss controversy surrounding business method patents might be software patent debate. The issues are similar, since business method patents are largely computer implemented inventions.--Nowa 11:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

dubiously relevant business method patents from 1799 and 1815

The article currently cites business method patents from the early days of the US patent office, with two specific examples from 1799 and 1815. However, during this time period (1793–1836) patents were issued automatically rather than being examined (perhaps a bit like a utility model) and the idea was that courts would rule on their validity after they were issued (see History of patent law and [1]). So it seems misleading to use patents issued during this time as evidence of business method patents being considered allowable then. However, I'm not sure how to fix this without committing original research. Perhaps others have written histories of business method patents which would present a more comprehensive view of what was and was not patented during this time period (and what held up in court, especially pre-1836)? I'm certainly no expert on the academic literature on this subject, though. Kingdon 22:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good points. It's probabably worth mentioning that from 1799 to 1836 US patents were issued automatically. Perhaps it's worth discussing the enforceability of business method patents in a separate section. Was State Street, for example, the first successful enforcement of a business method patent?--Nowa 10:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The concurring opinion of Judge Dyk in In re Bilski, Oct. 30, 2008, Fed. Cir., explains at length why this claim of early business method patents is insupportable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.26.115 (talk • contribs)

List of business method patents?

Is there a list somewhere of different business method patents? Some concrete examples for discussion would sure help out, instead of generalities about them.
~ender 2007-11-23 10:38:AM MST

The USPTO puts most "business method patents" into class 705. This link will show you a list Current issued US patents in class 705.--Nowa (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Move

The recent move was clearly inapprorpriate, and at least unnecessary for two reasons:

1. WP:NCCN - USe common names for things. The hyphen is certainly not in common usage.
2. The lack of a hyphen does not result in any ambiguity, and is therefore unnecessary and, according to the article on compound modifier advised against by various style guides.

Thanks for listening. GDallimore (Talk) 09:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Update needed

This article, at least insofar as it concerns US law, badly needs an update in light of the 2014 Supreme Court decision in Alice v CLS Bank and subsequent Federal Circuit cases. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

True, but it's still a bit early to tell what the actual impact will be.--Nowa (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have tagged the corresponding sections for now. --Edcolins (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Business method patent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.insurancenetworking.com/protected/article.cfm?articleId=3505
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007123319/http://www.patentlyo.com/08-964bsunitedstates.pdf to http://www.patentlyo.com/08-964bsunitedstates.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829183009/http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/july98/96-1327.wpd.html to http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/july98/96-1327.wpd.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007173417/http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=en&id=515 to http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=EN&id=515

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"Background"

I have changed the name of the section "background" into "definition, since that better reflects its contents. I have removed the first paragraph of this section since it was not specific for business method patents.

Sometimes business methods are equated to non-technical subject-matter, but technical business methods have been identified by the EPO.

I added a sentence to the very first paragraph to improve NPOV. Perhaps business method patents indeed are a valuable assets to some firms, but there area also numerous strong oppontents against business methods. Rbakels (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Could you please reinsert what you had added but with proper references? I have reverted your edits for now. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Business method patent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160228215505/http://www.acip.gov.au/pdfs/ACIP_Final_Report_Review_of_Patenting_of_Business_Systems_Archived.pdf to http://www.acip.gov.au/pdfs/ACIP_Final_Report_Review_of_Patenting_of_Business_Systems_Archived.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Definition

Business method patents are supposed to be introduced by the "State Street" court decision in the US in 1998, but ths very decision argues that "business method patent" is not a proper category, explaining why examiners had difficulties in distinguishing such patents. The court says that business method patent applications should be assessed in the same way as any other patent application, including the judicially created "abstract idea" exception that is part of US patent law. So it is questionable whether the article should give a business method patent definition at all. Rbakels (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Method vs. model

This article needs to explain the crucial difference between a business method and a business model. The very idea of patentable business methods has made people believe you can now patent mere business models. You can't patent it when you're simply the first person to provide a camera rental service, in order to keep everybody else on the planet from renting out cameras. If you're the first person in the world to use Audacity (audio editor) to record or mix music without you having written the software (or owning the rights to the program), you can't file a patent to make everybody on earth pay royalties to you when they do the same. The very fact that you've edited wedding photos in Photoshop before doesn't put you in the position of being able to sue anybody else using Photoshop to edit wedding photos, unless you're Adobe. --2003:DA:CF0A:F294:686B:7CDE:7FD1:8E41 (talk) 07:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

In my observation this page does an ok (not great) job of summarizing the complex jurisprudence on this very idea. The top thing that it needs the most is good research but it is hard to know where to begin as it is in a pretty loose status. What you are saying are good common sense interpretations but in academic sources things are very seldom that cut and dry and most legal scholars wouldn't categorically say you can't do something that is only a hypothetical. Jorahm (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)