Have Business Method Patents Gotten a Bum Rap? Some Empirical Evidence

By Hunter, Starling David, III | JITTA : Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, January 1, 2004 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Have Business Method Patents Gotten a Bum Rap? Some Empirical Evidence

Hunter, Starling David, III, JITTA : Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application


This study presents the results of an empirical test of two hypotheses concerning the quality of business method patents. The hypotheses are motivated by two frequently voiced criticisms of those patents: that their scope is overly broad and that they cite too little prior art. Using a sample of over 3,500 data processing, software, and internet patents granted between 1975 and 1999, I find little support for these criticisms. Rather, I find that business method patents are not broader and do not cite less prior art than comparable patents. While these findings don't completely exonerate business method patents of the charges of inferior quality, they do suggest that, at a minimum, they are no worse than comparable patents, at least along these two dimensions of quality.

"There are persistent reports that patents in the software area, perhaps especially, patents for 'business methods' implemented in software, are of extremely poor quality.

-Robert Merges, UC Berkeley Law Professor

"The burden of proof is not for the people who defend property rights, but for those who want to take them away."

-Jay Walker, founder of Walker Digital, an Internet R&D laboratory


Although patents for business methods implemented in software have been granted for a several decades (United States Patent & Trademark Office, 2001), they gained considerable notoriety and acceptance after the 1998 "State Street" decision laid to rest longstanding, and "ill-conceived" objections to them (State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. , Fed. Cir. 1998). The court's affirmation of the patentability of mathematical algorithms performed by computers which provided "useful, concrete, and tangible" results were many. New applications for business method patents more than sextupled, climbing from 1320 in 1998 to nearly 8000 by the year 2001. There was also an sharp increase in the quantity, amplitude, and range of the concerns raised in the press (Krigel 1998; Sandburg 1999; Gleick 2000; Dorny 2001) and by legal scholars (e.g. Merges 1999; Thomas 1999; Dreyfuss 2000, 2001 ; Bagley 2001 ; Meurer 2002) about patents on methods of doing business, especially those involving the conduct of e-commerce, e.g. Amazon.com's "1-click" patent. In the spring of 2000, under mounting pressure, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) announced a patent quality improvement initiative which incorporated many of the changes proposed by its harshest critics and its staunchest defenders (Dickinson 2000).

Impatient and distrustful of the USPTO's willingness and ability to reform the examination of business method patents, new legislation was passed which limited how patents on methods of doing business could be used against alleged infringers (e.g. American Inventors Protection Act of 1999). The Business Method Patent Improvement Act of 2000, a bill which never emerged from committee, proposed that business method patents, and only business method patents, meet new and higher statutory requirements. Also in 2000, Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, relenting to harsh criticism about his firm's decision to enforce it's "1-click" patent against Barnes & Noble.com, sponsored a web-site known as "Bounty Quest" which offered money to on-line sleuths to uncover examples of prior art which could be used to invalidate several well-known and many less known business method patents (Felton 2001). For many, however, these changes and recommendations were too little done too late to prevent what, for most, had become a foregone conclusion: that patents on business methods were possessed of substandard quality and would, as a result of that low quality, eventuate more harm than good for the software industry and the broader economy, introduce more rather than less subjectivity into these patents' examination, and increase the amount of litigation in this area.

One of the more striking facts about the controversy surrounding business method patents, especially in the wake of the State Street decision, is the manner in which the consensus about these patents' quality appears to have been formed.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Have Business Method Patents Gotten a Bum Rap? Some Empirical Evidence


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?