Business Method Patents - Need For Policy Appraisal
by: prashant_dahat
Total views: 203
Word Count: 5337
This is an excerpt of the conversation between Dickinson, Ex- director of USPTO and Tim O. Reilly, CEO, O. Reilly Media, the leading computer book publisher in the world. They are discussing what many in the patenting world refer to as a necessary evil and what an equal number term as an intellectual suicide.
Roughly, a business method patent is a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. From an economic perspective, the term .business method is very broad and comprises various economic activities like selling and buying items, marketing or finance methods, schemes and techniques. From a legal perspective, it is hard to find an abstract definition of what exactly constitutes a business method and what makes it different from other methods.
Business Method Patent Gold Rush: Why is India Untouched?
In India Business Method Patents are expressly excluded from the domain of patentable subject matter by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, which came into effect from May 20, 2003. Within the meaning of the patent statute.
Before we go on to examine the impact of such restriction on the Indian economic, legal and social set-up, it is imperative to first understand and appreciate the rationale behind the exclusion of business methods from patent protection in India by acquainting ourselves with the concerns and which buttress the non patentability of business methods. It is clarified by the authors here that the below mentioned reasons are only possibilities that may have been the probable concerns with the legislators at the time of introduction of such an exclusion.
The discussion of Business method patenting, anywhere in the world, starts with the mention of the 1998 case of State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group decided by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It for the first time laid the. Ill-conceived exception. of business method patenting in the US to rest. This lead to a gold rush for obtaining business method patent creating ripples in the popular legal and business and academic circles. In general, these patents received very poor reviews. The authors argue that with the magnitude of adverse commentary and reportage which engulfed business method patents in the US, the Indian PTO which attempts to model itself on the lines of USPTO experienced an induced deterrence for plunging in the complex and controversial sphere of business method patenting and this may have prompted the legislators to fence the Indian patent system against the dangers posed by these patents beforehand. Therefore, the situation in US might have been a colloquial reason for India to introduce such a clause. In part III of the paper the authors criticize this decision of the Indian law makers to be a rash reaction to the condition of business method patenting in the world.
The case for the grant of any patent is warranted on the ground of innovation enrichment as it creates incentive for the inventor, contributes in raising the welfare levels and gives birth to a condition of a temporary monopoly with its attendant deadweight loss. However, the legislators could have possibly mitigated the force of this argument by presuming that inventors are often motivated by a variety of factors which may not always be financial in character. Secondly, the innovators are often creative enough in securing returns to their inventions even in the absence of an explicit patent protection by bringing it to the market speedily and with the support of superior sales and service, lead time and secrecy.
The legislators may have envisaged a situation where in if particular ways of doing things are patented by many different institutions, they may give rise to a portfolio of patents for cross-licensing purposes. This in turn may raise the cost of doing business and make it harder for new firms to enter without access to the requisite intellectual property. The implication can be that in a rapidly innovating industrial world where each new product builds on others, welfare is more likely to be enhanced by forgoing the business method patent requirement for instilling a healthier competitive environment.
Another consideration against business method patents could be the overburdening the patent office with significant increases in patent applications resulting in a kind of vicious circle in which cursory examinations of patent applications would result in the issue of low-quality patents, which would again trigger rapid growth in applications, further taxing the limited resources of the PTO, further limiting the examination of individual applications and degrading the quality of patents11. Finally, the issue of a large number of low-quality patents will increase uncertainty among inventors concerning the level of protection enjoyed by these related inventions, which in turn will make it more costly and difficult for inventors to build on these related inventions in their own technical advances. The authors, however, explain in part III how lower patent quality in business method patents is not a generalized rule.
Impact of the restriction: impressions on the Indian economic and legal structure
It is crucial to realize that restricting Business method patents has had expansive implications on the stakeholders leaving deep impressions on the Indian economic and legal set up. It is significant to note that despite of the blanket exclusion of the business method patents in India a large number of business method patents are still being filed carefully tailored as patents applications to fall in some alternative category instead of a business method. A graver consequence of such a restriction is felt deeply by the innovators in the Indian companies who tend to lose out on a major slice of global business as they are unable to get patent protection for their business methods at home thereby creating a handicap for them when they tread globally in areas that extend patent protection to similar business methods in their economy. To illustrate this we may refer to the situation of the Indian companies in the education sector who by 2008 have lost a share of the global business valued at $21 billion, when Blackboard, a US based company, was granted a patent for technology used to deliver Internet-based education and support, jeopardizing the business of the several Indian companies enrolling US based students for their e-learning programs. These companies will now have to watch out as any infringement of Blackboard's patent may invite a suit running into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Therefore, generally speaking, due to exclusion of business methods in India the companies rush to the USPTO or the EPO to file for their patents. The latest example of this phenomenon is a Mumbai based company, Atom Technologies, a subsidiary of the BSE-listed Financial Technologies (India) Ltd (FTIL) that came out with a technology to swipe the mobile and purchase things like a credit card. The company could not secure a patent for developing this novel technology in its home country, however, received a patent for this payment mode in the US. The authors argue that had it been for the filing for such an application under the Indian law it would have been the most cost-effective starting point for a company to fence its intellectual property at home. Authors are of the view that if all method patenting applications continue to meet rejection due to the current position of law that refuses to make intelligible differentia amongst such applications then it will dispirit the Indian enterprises.
With the Patent Act restricting the patentability of the business methods, India is likely to face a myriad of dangers and losses, which it can not afford to at this juncture of its flourishing economy. Part III shall deal with this aspect in detail. However, before that it is essential to study the global trends prevalent with reference to Business Method Patenting.
II International Perspective- Which road should India chase?
Intellectual property is regarded as the main policy tool for molding private incentives to innovate and to diffuse innovations. The global trends have been considerably diverse when it comes to business method patents. The World Trade Organization.s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) does not specifically address business method patents.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Is the State Street really going to lead us to an
easy street?
JUDICIAL APPROACH TOWARDS BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS
Patents have been granted in the United States on methods for doing business since the US patent system was established in 1790. But in Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co, business methods were regarded as un-patentable being an exception. For many years USPTO took this position but in 1998 in the landmark judgement of Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group in which Judge Rich on the question of patentability focused on the condition that whether the claimed invention produces a "useful, concrete, and tangible result" and not that whether there are business methods, mathematical algorithms or physical transformations involved. This ruling was also reaffirmed in AT &T Corp. v. Excel Communications.
Subsequent to this decision, business entities throughout the world started filing thousands of .business method. applications. Some of them include those issued to Amazon.com for secure credit card processing, Priceline.com21 for reverse auctions. These cases were criticized as patents were declared valid even though they suffered from the lacuna of obviousness, and such patents being issued owing to the dearth of prior art available with the USPTO. In a recent case of eBay Inc v. Merc Exchange, L.L.C. the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not automatically issue based on a finding of patent infringement, but also should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. Also the freedom granted to these patents were restricted in a recent CFAC decision, In re Comiskey, the court explained that the use of a modern computer of communications system in an otherwise unpatentable mental process was obvious and not within the scope of patentable subject matter.
PATENTABILITY OF BUSINESS METHODS: LEGISLATIVE
CONTRIBUTION
The U.S. patent system is codified within Title 35 of the U.S. Code.24 The scope of patentable subject matter is determined in accordance with § 101. i.e. it should be novel, non-obvious and should have industrial utility. After the Courts recognition there was a huge rush for these patents and USPTO was purportedly blamed to grant business method patents in a rush. On November 29, 2000, Congress enacted the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) 1999, which established a shield against patent infringement liability. It is known as the "first inventor defense", under which the accused infringer can prove, that his method of doing business was, in good faith, used commercially at least one year before the effective filing date of the issued patent. Also the Business Method Patent Improvement Act (BMPIA) of 2000 was introduced. It made it more difficult for the PTO to issue a business method patent by introducing post grant protest and thereby assuring that the method is actually something new and innovative.
WORK AT USPTO
Prior to State Street, business method patents were not formally classified by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). Since the State Street decision, the USPTO classified all business method patents in Manual of Classification (MoC) Class 705 (IPC Classification: GO6Q), titled "Data Processing, Financial, Business Practice, Management, or Cost/Price Determination."Apart from going hog-wild granting business method patents on obvious technologies and abstract ideas, the USPTO unfairly prevented others from using them for the common good. There were problems while examining prior art and lack of expert examiners as well as adequate database for prior-art search. Finally, it responded to the public's and industry’s concerns. In 2000, it released an action plan to revamp the examination procedures for this class of applications.
REFORMS AT USPTO
To obtain better information concerning relevant prior art it hired and retained examiners who had significant business experience and expertise. It also updated its electronic databases to include non-patent literature (NPL). The USPTO has additionally been working to establish partnerships with industry associations and corporate entities to continually address new industry concerns. The USPTO also launched a website exclusively for business method patents.
A novel feature introduced, not to be found in laws of other countries is the mandatory second exam for all allowed applications to increase the quality of the issued patents in this class and to ensure that the prior-art search was conducted correctly. To incorporate these changes, the "Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions" was updated.
Thus after the express recognition of business method patents, USPTO was compelled to reform its patent law so as to resolve the problems linked with these kind of patents. But if business methods are recognized in India though with qualifications and reservations, India will not be encountering such harms as it already has safeguards in the form of pre-grant opposition and post grant opposition provisions in place under its Patent Act 1970 unlike USA which did not have any at the time of State Street.
EUROPEAN UNION: Heading Towards Progressive Law
The traditional view in Europe is that patents protect technical inventions, and "business", being non-technical, therefore should be excluded from patentability. But this has been a misconception based on the wording of the European Patent Convention (EPC). However, with the rise of e-commerce, it has become more difficult to define the boundary between "technical" and "non-technical". And consequently there has been a skyrocket rise in the number of business method applications.
According to the European Patent Convention (EPC), an invention is patentable if it is not excluded by Article 52(2) and (3) EPC i.e. it involves technical character, it is Two patents have been revoked one patent issued to Mercata, Inc. for a method of group online buying was revoked by the PTO within two months of its issuance. Similarly, a notice of allowance issued to Mob Shop, Inc. for a patent for aggregate online buying was issued and then withdrawn by the USPTO. novel (Article 54 EPC), involves an inventive step, i.e. is not obvious (Article 56 EPC) and is capable of industrial application (Article 57 EPC). The Board of Appeals has concluded that the legislator did not want to exclude all business methods from patentability by combining the two provisions of Art. 52 (2) and (3) EPC and decided that patentability is allowed for. at least some business methods.
The EPO first held in 1987, in the Vicom case, that the fact that an invention uses a computer program will not, in itself, exclude it from patentability. An important case concerning business methods decided by the EPO Boards of Appeal is the Sohei46 case. Now, India whose patent law is based on the model of European Patent law, under Sec 3 (k) excludes business method patents from patentable subject matter in the same fashion as done under Art 52 (2) of EPC. As we have seen that in Europe even after a first vote by the European Parliament to maintain and reinforce the exclusion of software and business methods from patentability in September 2003, the Council of the Ministers of the European Community published a working paper opposing the Parliaments position which proposes to cancel almost all patentability limits for computer-implemented inventions agreed on by the parliament earlier (Council of the European Community, 2004). Thus even India should think on these lines and follow the model and its working and discard the archaic principles from its own legal position otherwise it will not be able to keep pace with other economies.
JAPAN: Inventive Step is the key
In Japan, business methods are well recognized and accepted as patentable subject matter. The legal standard requires that inventions be "a highly advanced creation of technical ideas by which a law of nature is utilized. In effect, the JPO has said that business method patents per se are not patentable, unless they fall within the scope of software related inventions generally and have the necessary inventive step required of all
patentable inventions.
TRILATERAL MEETING: Confluence Of Technicality
The JPO, the EPO, and the USPTO convened a Trilateral Technical Meeting during mid- June 2000 to discuss and attempt to harmonize the patent practices between the three offices. It was agreed that a .technical aspect is necessary for a computer-implemented business method to be eligible for patenting. and that to .merely automate a known human transaction process using well known automation techniques is not patentable.
Thus even India should adopt these precautions and incorporate such a qualification to keep abreast with the international scenario.
III. Reinstating the Policy: Prospects and Recommendations
It is amply clear from the discussions in the first two parts of the paper that the time is now ripe for engineering a revival strategy for business method patents under the Indian law addressing the concerns of the adolescent Indian economy and catering to the ambitions of the still maturing patent system.
Business Method Patents: Marking Misconceptions
Before we venture out to suggest modifications to the current law, it is of essence to shed light on some of the most prevalent misconceptions associated with business method patenting.
Topping the list is the criticism that business method patents do not provide an incentive for innovation. The authors strongly believe that Intellectual Property fuels innovation, entrepreneurship and spurs investment, without any exception, leading to economic development. It is worthwhile to note that improved patent laws contributed to the tripling of US pharmaceutical investment in Mexico and Japan, thereby strengthening the fact that potential investors value organizations/countries that have some form of protection for their intellectual property. Also, the decision to invest money, time and effort into research and development is easier if a company is confident that it will be able to protect its creative work from unfair disposal. Such increase in investments particularly by the domestic sector for R&D, augment innovation. Above analysis
reiterates that disclosure is the key to growth in an information-based society.
One must be aware of the fact that because of non-patenting of business methods several Indian companies in various sectors are paying a heavy cost by forgoing the monopoly they must enjoy for their novel, non-obvious and extremely useful business methods unlike their global counterparts.
The authors believe that business methods could be viewed both as an opportunity and a threat for Indian economy reclining immensely on the structuralization of the Indian patent system. For example, the companies can use such patents to gain a competitive edge in the market, use it as a valuable asset while negotiating with big players or make it a revenue stream through active licensing. For instance, the known technology giant Dell attributes much of its success to patenting of its business model.
Business method patents are often criticized for bringing an additional burden of unnecessary litigation or creating barriers to entry for small start-up companies which are often forced to spend a lot of money to avoid litigation and/or to engage in patent prosecution. Countering this argument is the conclusion that small, start-up companies would have fewer opportunities to enter the market or to attract investors without access to business method patents.
Considering the contrary, if the business methods are not patented then it creates a threatening situation for the Indian companies which provide software and services to countries like US and EU, and do not have IP protection over their software. They are under a constant danger of potentially infringing upon IPRs of MNCs. Also, technology being adopted by the domestic companies may be unique but parallel development of a similar technology by someone else may adversely affect their business if the technology is not protected.
Critics may also assert that many business methods fail to meet the novelty and non obviousness requirements, and instead merely constitute abstract ideas rather than describing technical means.
It should be noted, however, that not every business method, as with any other invention, satisfies the patentability standard of novelty, inventive step (non obviousness) and industrial applicability (utility). Whether a patent is overbroad does not constitute that business methods or another type of inventions are improper subject matter for patentability.
Many criticize business method patents as being singularly inferior to other patents due to their low quality rather than the existence as the real policy problem. The authors here argue that such conception of low quality is derived from the US experience in particular which was largely due to: an overburdened patent office, lack of expertise in the relevant areas, lack of prior art databases, and the weakening of the non-obviousness test, partly through court decisions. Hence, such a conclusion cannot have any general applicability.
One must necessarily take account of the unique characteristics of granting business method patents which include creation of an asset that will remain within the company even when the inventor/employee leaves the company and a company may receive benefits of tax deduction from donating unused patents.
Before we make any policy recommendation in the sphere of reinstating the position of business methods in India, the authors here wish to call attention to two main inferences from the discussion.
1) Criticism often is directed more towards inefficient work of the patent offices rather than to business methods themselves.
2) All patents are of monopolistic nature and impose costs on a market.
If a consumer is willing to pay monopoly prices, then it follows that the patent system is economically justified.
TECHNICAL CHARACTER
As emphatically explained by the authors in Part II of the paper, almost all countries of the world have recognized business method patenting along with the condition that pure business methods should not be protected. India should also, thus incorporate this with rigorous application of the inventive step criterion. Effectively, a patent related to a business method will be limited in scope to only a specific non-obvious technical implementation thereof.
These are essentially of two types, pure business methods or the ones involving technical character. The fundamental basis of all patent laws is that laws of nature or abstract or pure ideas should not be patented as they do not fulfill the criteria of non-obviousness which is a very essential requisite for a patentable subject matter in al jurisdictions.
The question now arises that how will this technical character provision function. Assessed in the light of history, technical, should be viewed as an evolving, time dependant concept rather than static, unchanging idea.
An invention has a technical character if there are technical considerations involved either in the underlying problem solved by the claimed invention, in the means constituting the solution of the underlying problem, or in the (technical) effects achieved in the solution of the underlying problem. But not only the means should be technical but the purpose should also be one. Examples of technicality are processing physical data( image processing, controlling value in an industrial process) processing which affects the way in which a computer operates (increasing speed, saving memory space, increasing security) or processing which is based on considerations of how a computer works.
This approach will take care of all the problems which these patents can cause (mentioned in Part I of the Article) .Pure business methods include natural laws, mere discoveries where an inventor does not create any technical ideas, those in which natural laws are not utilized, personal skill, mere presentation of information and aesthetic creations are obvious and thus do not involve an inventive step. Patenting such methods would be unfair for human advantage as this will have disastrous consequences on the theory of innovation. They do not contribute to scientific progress or motivate useful inventions, but rather focus on advancement of business interests - which is inconsistent with the primary purpose of patent system.
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in its policy report said that it believes that the protection of such business methods involving technical character as it stimulates international trade and investment, and encourages innovation and transfer of technology, which are essential for economic growth. Also, The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property supports patent protection for business methods "provided that the invention as defined in the claims has a technical content.
PRINCIPLES: Circumventing the dangers of Business Method Protection
Granting patent protection to business method patents would be accompanied with the associated risks and if left unmanaged, these risks can be alarming given the costs and damage awards of patent litigation involved. Some key principles to internalize these risks are-
Principle 1- Manage ownership
Common duties and obligations of the inventor employees regarding inventions include assigning patent rights and assisting in patent prosecution. Resolving ownership may be costly and securing voluntary cooperation from an ex-employee may be impossible. Therefore, having a proper agreement in place first will clarifies such expectations.
Principle 2- Identify and document innovations
Innovative business processes must be identified early on before statutory bar activities occur68, if possible prior release or else the potential for patentability is lost. Identifying these innovations is useful for documentation purposes for prior user defense.
Principle 3- Evaluate the right to use
Identification of the invention also assists in determining whether or not use of the innovation might be in violation of someone else's patent rights and modifying the methods.
Principle 4- Monitor the industry
This would include tracking the patent activity of competitors. Frequent review of issued patents or patent publications from key competitors and watching to see if competitors are advertising their products or services as "patent pending" or with patent numbers will always be helpful.
Principle 5- Transfer liability
Indemnification agreements for patent infringements should be entered into with suppliers of products or services and through defensive insurance policies.
Principle 6- Educate employees
Innovators and decision makers need to be aware of both the opportunities and the risks associated with business method patents and to understand how patent rights can affect the business, for better or for worse. Companies today are measured by their knowledge, their ability to communicate their knowledge and their ability to create new knowledge. It would be ironic if the patent system, which has been essential in creating the knowledge based economy, now has no place for the protection of such knowledge itself.
Recommendations
Even though there can be more than one way of protecting intellectual capital related to business methods, however, in view of the authors patents are India’s’ strongest bet as they render complete protection over the idea itself, including the innovative and qualifying features unlike in trade secrets or copyrights which protect only non-functional authorships excluding ideas, Methodologies, Processes or Techniques.
Recommendation 1
Inserting a comprehensive definition of Business method patents is extremely important in the Indian act. Even assuming that the costs of business method patents outweigh the benefits, we must be able to define the field before attempting to set a different standard for it. However, the PTO, scholars and stakeholders must realize that this by no means is an easy task as an exact and precise distinction between a process claim, in general and a business method claim, in particular, is hard to come by. Therefore, India must necessarily adhere to specific parameters per se for identifying business methods entitled to protection under the law by either initially taking the support of the IPC business method classification list69 or USPTO class 705 before developing a list of its own.
Recommendation 2
For improvement of quality of patents being granted PTO must hire examiners with business backgrounds, providing them with increased access to non-patent prior art resources, e-mail updates on business developments and the development of a training manual unique to this patent classification area.
Recommendation 3
Authors have often suggested incorporation of copyright principles into the evaluation of business method patents which is already an alternative practice in India. However, the authors believe that the fundamental concepts of copyright law are a mismatch with that of the more technical patent law in place and such an evaluation further blurs the scope of protection to be extended to the business method patents71.
Recommendation 4
It is proposed by the authors that Business Method Patents should be granted for a shorter time span than that of a conventional patent. Such a clause would be conducive to a constant periodic revival of technology in the mainstream IP arena thereby maintaining an environment of healthy competition by getting rid of the dead weight loss associated with the granting of the monopoly, in a rapidly transforming global economic dynamics.
However, this recommendation requires a detailed analysis of costs and benefits with essential contributions required from all the global stakeholders as such a suggestion would prompt for a reconsideration of TRIPS which mandates the time to be 20 years from filing for utility patents.
Recommendation 5
It is prudent to include private players to consolidate prior art search. The public, including business executives, can be an important resource in locating and identifying business method prior art. Consider the Example of US where as a possible solution to the business method patent controversy, a new website BountyQuest.com has been launched which allowed anyone to post a bounty (at least $10,000) for prior art that would challenge an indicated patent. The public is invited to respond to these postings and collect the bounty. PTO must adopt new rules requiring applicants to disclose the extent to which they have exercised diligence in searching the prior art.
Conclusion
The author believes that jurisdictions, which adopt more liberal approaches, promote progress more efficiently than those that take a rigid position. Drawing from the deliberations in Part I, II and III of the paper, it is proposed that Business method patents provide competitive advantage, incentive to innovate, opportunity to recoup research and development costs, attract investors, afford inventors royalty income, and prevent competitors from unfair business practices. Business methods require legal protection because they involve research and development costs, are vulnerable for duplication and can be easily identified. A criticism that business method patents may cause negative effects in a marketplace is unsupported without accurate economic analysis. The authors, therefore, conclude that there is no firm reason for rejection of business method patenting in India. The authors wish to point out the fact that a patent system is not designed to assure that the benefits associated with the issuance of every patent outweigh the costs of the individual patent. Therefore, it is incorrect to throw the baby out of the bath water when the treatment is possible.
References:
Laws
1. Basic Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Principles
2. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights, WIPO.
3. The Indian Patent Act, 1970
4. The U.S Patent Act, 1952
5. The U.K. Patent Act
6. American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) 1999
7. Business Method Patent Improvement Act (BMPIA) of 2000
Cases
1. Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co 160 F. 467 (2d Cir. 1908)
2. State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group 149 F.3d
1368 (1998)
3. AT &T Corp. v. Excel Communications 172 F.3d 1352 (1999)
4. Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 73 F. Supp. 2d 1228, 1249 (W.D.
Wash. 1999)
5. eBay Inc v. MercExchange, L.L.C. 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006)
6. In re Comiskey Fed. Cir. 2007, 06-1286.
7. In re Nuijten, No. 06-1371 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 20, 2007).
Journals and Research Papers
1. Cohen, J. E. and Lemley M.A, .Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry,. 89 California Law Review.
2. R. C. and Levin J, "Patent Oppositions," Yale University and Stanford University Working Paper, March 2002.
3. Hall Bronwyn H, .Business Method Patents, Innovation, and Policy., Working Paper No. CPC03-39, 2003, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley.
4. Hunt, R. M, .You Can Patent That? Are Patents on Computer Programs and Business Methods Good for the New Economy?. , 2001 Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank Business Review 5.
5. Fisher & Zollinger, Business Method Patents Online: Berkmen Centre for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School 2001
6. Brenda Sandburg, Patent Office Approves Fewer Business-Method Applications, American Lawyer Media, Dec. 21, 2000, at 5
7. Dreyfuss, Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business? Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, Vol. 16(2) 2000
8. Hunt Robert M., .Business Method Patents For U.S. Financial Services., Working Paper No. 07-21, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, March 2007.
9. Meurer Michael J, .Controlling Opportunistic And Anticompetitive Intellectual Property Litigation., Working Paper No. 02-24, Boston College Law Review 2003. accessed from http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/papers on 15.01.2088 at 18:00 hrs.
Books
1. Keith Beresford, Patenting software under the European Patent Convention, Sweet & Maxwell, 2000
Patent Offices
1. United States Patent and Trademark Office - Main Website
2. United States Patent and Trademark Office - Business Method Patent Site
3. European Patent Office - Website
4. Japanese Patent Office - Website
5. UK Patent Office. Website
Article Source: http://www.ArticleStreet.com/profile/prashant_dahat-11982.html
About the Author
Prashant R. Dahat LL.M 1st Year, National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal. India. E-mail: prashant_dahat@yahoo.co.in, prashantdahat@gmail.com. Contact Number. 09770338751 Permanent Address: A-13/3 Vyankateshnagar, Nandanvan, Nagpur - 440009. (M.S), India.
Rating: Not yet rated