Skip navigation

Current DateTime: 06:14:28 26 Nov 2009
LinksList Documentid: 24355697
  • Runway Angels

      The superbowl of fashion shows, models walk down the runway at the 2009 Victoria's Secret Show.

  • Smartphone Guide

      Here's a need-to-know guide to nine devices, based on features, price, network and platform.

  • Wines for the Holidays

      Not quite sure what wine to pair with Turkey or Creme Brulee? Our experts do.

Court limits ‘business method’ patents
By: The Associated Press | 30 Oct 2008 | 04:20 PM ET
Text Size
Companies outraged that man can’t patent a business idea

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.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Tools:
Print EmailAdd This share icon
  • digg share

CNBC HIGHLIGHTS

  • For nearly three decades, these on-call experts have been dishing advice on how to – and not to – cook turkey.
  • Eric Schmidt pledges to create a virtual copy of the Iraq National Museum at Google’s expense.
  • Bill Griffeth is taking a leave of absence from CNBC and Power Lunch for a year. Here's a message from Bill.
  • More shoppers than ever plan to comparison-shop this season. Who will benefit?
  • It may be the most unusual guide to business you'll read.
  • Cut Credit cards
  • How can you get out of debt and back on the road to recovery? Follow these ten steps.
ADD COMMENTS
Remaining characters


Current DateTime: 01:44:15 26 Nov 2009
LinksList Documentid: 29778428

Current DateTime: 01:04:07 26 Nov 2009
LinksList Documentid: 29779196

Current DateTime: 01:04:08 26 Nov 2009
LinksList Documentid: 29779199

Current DateTime: 01:04:08 26 Nov 2009
LinksList Documentid: 29779198
  Data is a real-time snapshot  *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes
Global Business and Financial News, Stock Quotes, and Market Data and Analysis

© 2009 CNBC, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
A Division of NBC Universal
Thomson ReutersThomson Reuters