Title:
Inventors Given Hope on Patents for Business Methods
Description: This is
a VOA Special English Economics Report.
See text below
Text:
Recently, the United States Supreme Court decided a
case on the property rights of inventors. The
question was whether a business method is enough of
an invention to receive a patent. Patents are a form
of intellectual property. They give legal
protections to individuals and companies against the
copying of their inventions. Bernard Bilski and Rand
Warsaw wanted to patent a method to let traders
protect against the risk of price changes in energy
markets. The United States Patent and Trademark
Office said no. So the inventors went to court.
Again they were told no. Finally, the case went all
the way to the Supreme Court. In June, all nine
justices said no. But they only said no to a patent
in this case. Patent lawyer Meredith Martin Addy in
Chicago explains that the court ruled narrowly.She
said: "The Supreme Court held that there is no
categorical rule denying patent protection for
business method patents."When patent laws were first
developed, most patents were for machines. But since
the late nineteen nineties, inventors of business
methods and processes have increasingly sought
patent protection. Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw
brought a lawsuit against the Patent and Trademark
Office. Technology companies, especially software
makers, watched the case closely. They were
concerned that the Supreme Court would require a
test of some kind that could limit what can be
patented.In its ruling, the court decided against
the patent only because the idea was too abstract.
Law professor Michael Meurer of Boston University
gives a famous example from physics. It involves the
relationship of energy, mass and the speed of light,
written as the letter c. He said: "The Supreme Court
has said, for example, if Albert Einstein determined
that E = mc squared -- which he did -- he never
would have been able to get a patent on that. That's
too abstract." In the Bilski case, the court said
patent examiners could consider what is known as the
machine-or-transformation test. This is the idea
that a patent should be given to a machine or
something that creates a material change, like a
chemical process. But a majority of justices said
patent examiners must also protect innovation.
Patent lawyer Meredith Martin Addy says no one wants
to suppress creativity. Now, more cases will be
needed to define the legal limits of business method
patents. Such patents already exist. In March, for
example, after re-examination, Amazon.com received a
patent for its one-click ordering process. And
that's the VOA Special English Economics Report.
Hi. I
personally reviewed this video and found it appropriate for
the news section of English Global Group. This
is a Voice of America video which covers an interesting
topic in Special English. I would appreciate some feedback from both
students and teachers about this video. You can comment in
the window below using any of a number of different services
including Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, and Hotmail.
To post a comment:
• Click "Comment using..." in
the window below
• Click your favorite service: Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, Hotmail
• Login to the service
• Click "Add a comment..."
• Post your comment in the window
Students: Please post a
comment stating what you found interesting about this video. You are
welcome to include links to your English study blogs and any
other materials you think might be useful for learning
English.
Teachers: Please post your
thoughts about this video. You are welcome to include links to
your sites, blogs, and any other materials you think might
be useful for learning English.