The Supreme Court heard a case today concerning what can legally be patented. The case, Bilski and Warsaw v. Kappos, concerns Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw, who were denied a patent for a business method. They are appealing a ruling that patents must be tied to something tangible. Most patents concern tangible inventions, such as a new chemical or product. Bilski and Warsaw's method would have made energy expenditures more predictable for organizations.
Patenting a method? It may sound strange to some, but I think that if you legitimately create something--regardless of what that item is--you should be able to patent it. While nothing is ever absolute, and there always seems to be an exception, I think that the Court needs to strongly consider the potential effects of their ruling.
It will be interesting to see what the Court decides.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/10patent.html?_r=1&em
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment