Inventors Given Hope on Patents for Business Methods

Inventors Given Hope on Patents for Business Methods

This is the VOA Special English Economics Report.

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.

最近,美國最高法院裁定一個有關發明財產權的案件.
現在的問題是,是否有足夠的商業方法，能夠讓發明獲得專利。
專利是一種形式的智慧財產.他們給個人和公司提供法律的保障來防止複製他們的發明.


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.

Bernard Bilski和Rand Warsaw想取得一個專利能讓商人免受於能源市場的價格變動之風險.美國專利和商標局說no.

So the inventors went to court. Again they were told no. Finally, the case went all the

way to the Supreme Court. Last month, 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.

因此,發明人走上法庭.他們再度被告知no. 最後,這個案子一直到最高法院. 上個月,所有9名法官都說no.
但是他們只是說no對這個專利在這個案子。專利律師Meredith Martin Addy在芝加哥解釋說，法院裁定狹隘。

MEREDITH MARTIN ADDY: "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.

MEREDITH MARTIN ADDY:"最高法院認為沒有明確的規則，否認對商業方法專利保護的專利."
當最初制定專利法,專利多是保護機器.但19世紀90年代末以來,商業方法和流程發明家日益尋求專利保護。


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.

科技公司,特別是軟體製造商,密切的看著案子.他們擔心最高法院將需要某種形式的測試,將會限制什麼可以申請專利.

在其裁決中,法院決定反對專利只因當時的想法是過於抽象.波士頓大學法律教授Michael Meure從物理學提出一個著名的例子.他涉及能量 質量和速度被寫成字母c的關係

MICHAEL MEURER: "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.


MICHAEL MEURER: "最高法院說,舉例,假如愛因斯坦確定其E = mc平方 --這是他推論的 -- 他永遠沒辦法獲得該專利.因為這過於抽象"

在Bilski案案件中，法院說專利審查員可以考慮什麼是所謂的machine-or-transformation測試.這是一個給予機器或某種東西專利的想法,創造一個重大變化,就像一個化學變化過程.


But a majority of justices said patent examiners must also protect innovation. Patent

lawyer Meredith Martin Addy says no one wants to suppress creativity.

MEREDITH MARTIN ADDY: "You can have that test, but it can’t be an exclusive test because

of the nature of the patent laws which are to protect new and unknown inventions."

但多數法官說專利審查員還必須保護創新.專利律師Meredith Martin Addy 說，沒有人想抑制創新.

Meredith Martin Addy:"你可以有這種測試,但它不能成為獨家測試的性質,因為專利法的本質，就是保護新和未知的發明."

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.

現在,將需要更多的案件來定義商業方法專利的合法界線.
這些專利已經存在.今年3月,例如,經過重新審查，Amazon.com 取得one-click訂購過程的專利.