{
  "id": "RL30572",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30572",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101933,
      "date": "2000-06-01",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:36:22.432941",
      "title": "Patents on Methods of Doing Business",
      "summary": "The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in  State Street\nBank &\nTrust Co. v. Signature Financial Group , 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), held that inventors\nmay\nobtain patents on methods of doing business. Subsequent judicial opinions have confirmed this\nholding. Recently issued patents in fields such as architecture, investment, marketing, psychological\nanalysis and sports methods also suggest that inventions from virtually any human endeavor may be\nthe subject of proprietary rights through the patent system.\n  Since  State Street Bank , proprietors of patents concerning Internet-based electronic\n commerce\nconcepts have launched enforcement litigation against competitors. Notable among this litigation\nis  Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc ., 73 F. Supp.2d 1228 (W.D. Wash.\n1999), where\na federal district court enjoined the use of one-click ordering system on a website on the eve of the\nholiday shopping season. Both Congress, by enacting the First Inventor Defense Act of 1999 ( P.L.\n106-113 ), and the United States Patent and Trademark Office, through its Business Methods Patent\nInitiative, have also addressed business method patent issues.\n  The opening of the patent system to inventions outside traditional industrial technologies has\nbeen the subject of an ongoing public debate. Proponents of business method patenting have urged\nthat the patent system should keep pace with technologies of the Information Age, including\nelectronic commerce and data processing. Proponents have also observed the difficulty of\ndistinguishing business methods from traditionally patentable processes. In contrast, detractors have\nnoted the lack of empirical evidence that economic gains will result from business method patents\nand expressed concerns that business method patents will hinder competition. Commentators have\nalso expressed concerns that many business method patents should not have been granted, stating\nthat such patents too often appropriate well-known commercial activities rather than inventive\nadvances over public domain knowledge.\n  Observers differ on whether a legislative response to the phenomenon of business method\npatenting is desirable. Possibilities include amendment of the First Inventor Protection Act to\nprovide a more detailed definition of the term \"method of doing or conducting business.\" In\naddition, possible substantive reforms include imposing a ban upon business method patents,\nadoption of an industrial application requirement or a moratorium upon their offensive use. Possible\nprocedural reforms include provision for an obligatory reevaluation of business method patents prior\nto enforcement litigation, as well as improved resources for the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice to examine business method patent applications.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30572",
          "sha1": "2ed5c3d821446709250c0ebde1e2a547cad7e4db",
          "filename": "files/20000601_RL30572_2ed5c3d821446709250c0ebde1e2a547cad7e4db.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20000601_RL30572_2ed5c3d821446709250c0ebde1e2a547cad7e4db.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy",
    "Education Policy"
  ]
}