Is the patent system broken? (If it isn't broken, don't fix it)

R. Hunter
{"title":"Is the patent system broken? (If it isn't broken, don't fix it)","authors":"R. Hunter","doi":"10.1109/ISTAS.2002.1013796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For many years computer software and ways of doing business were not considered to be patentable. Software was finally deemed patentable in the early eighties and ways of doing business were patented in the nineties, especially with the advent of e-commerce. In this paper I review the expanded scope of patents being issued by the PTO (Patent and Trademark Office) and the roles of the congress, the patent bar and the courts. I also address the question: do software and ways of doing business patents \"promote the progress of science and useful arts\" as envisioned in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8)? The answer seems to be no: the patent system is broken. Some proposed fixes are included.","PeriodicalId":377470,"journal":{"name":"IEEE 2002 International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS'02). Social Implications of Information and Communication Technology. Proceedings (Cat. No.02CH37293)","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE 2002 International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS'02). Social Implications of Information and Communication Technology. Proceedings (Cat. No.02CH37293)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAS.2002.1013796","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

For many years computer software and ways of doing business were not considered to be patentable. Software was finally deemed patentable in the early eighties and ways of doing business were patented in the nineties, especially with the advent of e-commerce. In this paper I review the expanded scope of patents being issued by the PTO (Patent and Trademark Office) and the roles of the congress, the patent bar and the courts. I also address the question: do software and ways of doing business patents "promote the progress of science and useful arts" as envisioned in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8)? The answer seems to be no: the patent system is broken. Some proposed fixes are included.
专利制度失灵了吗?(如果没坏,就不要修)
多年来,计算机软件和经营方式都不被认为具有专利性。软件最终在80年代初被认为是可申请专利的,而做生意的方式在90年代被授予专利,尤其是随着电子商务的出现。在本文中,我回顾了由专利商标局(PTO)颁发的专利的扩大范围以及国会、专利律师协会和法院的作用。我还提出了一个问题:软件和商业专利是否如宪法(第1条第8款)所设想的那样“促进科学和实用艺术的进步”?答案似乎是否定的:专利制度已经崩溃了。包括一些建议的修复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信