"Bilski" Case May End Business Method Patents

hey sends us to a blog at NYTimes outlining the upcoming appeal of the case known as "re Bilski," which could spell the end of patents on methods of doing business later this year. One patent expert is quoted: "I think this is the unraveling of business method patents... I think there is a process we are going to go through to get there and the Supreme Court is going to be the one that decides it." But another expert thinks the case is unlikely to bring down the whole class of patents: "Definitions of business method patents always end up being circular. You can't really ban something unless you can define it and no one is offering a definition we can use."

Comments

Re:No definition?

[reebmmm]

The problem is coming up with a GENERIC definition of a business method. Particular examples of business methods aren't difficult. The point being that most people know one when they see one, but describing the class generically risks including too much (e.g. other method type claims).

Also, business method is really only necessary for classification purposes. Beyond that, a "business method patent" is like every other type of patent and so must meet the same basic criteria as any other patent. There isn't a different standard.

Re:How about

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU's patentability rules already disallow business model patents. To quote the relevant parts:

(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:

...

(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

Circular definition or not, the system has held up pretty well since it was introduced in 1973, most (all?) member states already had similar restrictions before the rules were unified.

Patent on Method for swinging on a swing

[Tmack]

The fact that this is patented is example enough that the system is broken, and method patents are ludicrous. Business method patents even more so. At least they go into detail on describing this method...

Linky

Tm

The problem there is precision

[Moraelin]

Well, the problem with law and what created legalese, is that you need to be painstakingly precise in defaining _exactly_ what is allowed and what isn't. Because otherwise someone _will_ use any inexactity to their own end, to shaft someone else. Natural language is vague, and lots of things that look clear when said or written in a blog, leave loopholes that you could drive a bus through.

That's really why legalese evolved, and why contracts and laws are so verbose and use funny jargon.

E.g., let's say I aggree to sell you a "Wii, original box" for your money. What if I only send you the cardboard box, without a Wii in it. There actually was an auction on ebay doing exactly that, albeit with a PS2 back when it was launched and there were massive shortages. Ok, so let's clarify that a bit as "Wii in its original packaging". Does it say it has to be a working Wii? It doesn't. Ok, let's clarify that too. Does it say in how much time I have to send it to you? I don't think so. So if you don't get it until 2018, hey, I still didn't break my word. So let's clarify that one too. Did I say I was going to include a wiimote and the cables and everything? Well, nope. If I'm an arsehole, I might send it to you without anything except the box, just so you pay more buying everything that's missing separately. Did we stipulate any penalties for breaking that contract? No? Well, then I might break it anyway, and what are you going to do about it? Did I say where it would be delivered? I'm delivering it to the top of Mt Everest then. Feel free to drop by and get it from there, any time you wish. Etc.

As a private person you don't actually have to worry about most of that, because someone made some laws against that. But that means, essentially: someone else wrote a ton of legalese, so you don't have to. But it's there.

But companies don't get that break, and neither do courts and lawmakers. There you really have to define _everything_ in painstaking detail.

If you just say "thou shalt not steal", you'll get people arguing that they only borrowed it without your knowledge. Or conversely, what happens if I lent you a book and you forgot to bring it back in time? Can I claim that you're a thief and throw you in jail? So you end up having to write many pages as to exactly what is a theft, what isn't, and what steps to take to distinguish between them.

There you go. For vague everyday use you have a very simple concept: "thou shalt not steal." It doesn't get any clearer. But for a law it doesn't even _start_ to be enough.