- Retail Earnings in Focus Ahead of Shopping Season
- Apple Surpasses Nokia as Top Handset Maker by Profit
- In This Relay-Race Market, Who Gets Baton Next?
- Workers Staying Put at Their Jobs as Jobless Surges
- Three Things the US Can Do To Stop the Dollar's Decline
- Toll Brothers: More Contracts Signed, but Sales Down
- Ponzi Proceeds: Bidding on Madoff's Toys
- Bear Stearn Fund Managers Not Guilty on All Counts
- Commodity ETFs: Returns May Not Match Expectations
- Beware of 'Trampling Effect' When Market Tops: Manager
- Gold Heading to $1150: Art Hogan
- Starbucks Brews Up Growth
- Farr: An Extended Period—No Fat Lady in Sight
- More Upside if S&P Passes This Number: Market Pro
- Murdoch Lashes Out At Google
- Fighting The Flu Vaccine Critics
- Nov. 10: Unusual Volume Leaders
- Shadow Inventory Dwarfs Loan Mods
- GM chairman says co. committed to repaying aid
- UT board: Depleted uranium disposal needs scrutiny
- Assured Guaranty forecasts 3rd-quarter loss
- Ralcorp nearly doubles profit in 4th-quarter
- FDIC boss: Big banks still aren't lending enough
- Logitech to buy LifeSize Communications for $405M
- Werner Enterprises to pay special dividend
- Emdeon 3Q loss widens on costs
- Ambac warns it may file for bankruptcy protection
WASHINGTON - 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.
- Vote and suggest your own, and remember--there's a fine line between a hero and a zero.
- If you are lucky enough to have money and the time, this is a great time to see America, says CNBC's Jane Wells.
- What’s powering your microwave, fridge and computer? Part of it is fuel from Russian nuclear weapons. The NYT reports.
- One author sees lessons for you in Disney’s recent Makeover of Mickey Mouse: “Nice” doesn’t always win.
- With 123 years of history, slogans and commercials, Coca-Cola is the most recognized brand on earth.
- The opening of a virtual pet store in “World of Warcraft” could prove a cash bonanza for Activision-Blizzard.








