E-commerce patents and shifting balances in patent law

IEEE Communications Magazine

Volumn 38, Issue 7, 2000, Pages 106-110

  Durant, Stephen C ^a   Chuang, Thomas C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

PATENTABILITY;

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE;

EID: 0034229944     PISSN: 01636804     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1109/35.852040     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. L. Lesig, "Online Patents: Leave Them Pending," Wall St. J., Mar. 23.
2. J. Gleick, "Patently Absurd," New York Times Mag., Mar. 12, 2000.
3. In Re Schrader, 22 F. 3d 290, 292 (emphasis added).
4. Patentable Subject Matter: Mathematical Algorithms and Computer Programs, 1106 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 5, Sept. 5, 1989.
5. In Re Sterling, 70 F.2d 910, CCPA, 1934.
6. In Re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583, Fed. Cir., 1995.
7. "U.S. PTO Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions," 61 Federal Register 7478, 1996.
8. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States provides "The Congress shall have power … To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
9. S. Reiss, "St. Tim of the Web," Forbes, Nov. 15, 1999, p. 314.
10. See 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112, "Complete Description of the Requirements for the Specification."
11. R. P. Merges, "As Many as Six Impossible Patents Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform," 14 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 577, 1999.