1 See Robert C. Scheinfeld, The Impact of State Street on Your Business, 589 Prac. L. Inst. 7, 24 (2000).
2 See id.
3 Id.
4 See id.
5 See id. at 12.
6 See Larry J. Guffey, Business Method Patents: What They Are—Why Clients and Service Providers Should Care, 33 Md. Bus. J. 25, 26 (2000).
7 See id.
8 See id.
9 See infra notes 13–47.
10 See infra notes 48–153.
11 See infra notes 154–178.
12 See infra notes 179–186.
13 See E. Thomas Sullivan, The Confluence of Antitrust and Intellectual Property at the New Century, 1 Minn. Intell. Prop. Rev. 1, 5 (2000).
14 Id.
15 See id.
16 See id. at 6.
17 See id.
18 U.S. Const. art. I, � 8.
19 35 U.S.C. � 101 (1994).
20 See 35 U.S.C. � 154 (1994).
21 Justice Department, FTC Adopt Intellectual Property Guidelines, 68 Antitrust & Trade Reg. Rep. (BNA) No. 1708, at 476–77 (Apr. 13, 1995) [hereinafter Guidelines].
22 See Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business?, 16 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 263, 265 (2000).
23 See Guidelines, supra note 21, � 1.0.
24 See Leo J. Raskind, The State Street Bank Decision: The Bad Business of Unlimited Patent Protection for Methods of Doing Business, 10 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L. J. 61, 70–71 (1999).
25 See id.
26 See id.
27 See Guidelines, supra note 21, � 1.0
28 Id.
29 See id.
30 See Cont’l Paper Bag Co. v. E. Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 429 (1908).
31 See id.
32 Jay Dratler, Jr., Licensing of Intellectual Property � 6.02 [2] (2000).
33 See id.
34 See Sullivan, supra note 13, at 1–2.
35 See Dratler, supra note 32, � 6.02 [2]; Robert Hulse, Note, Patentability of Computer Software After State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.: Evisceration of the Subject Matter Requirement, 33 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 491, 494 (2000).
36 See Guidelines, supra note 21, � 1.
37 Hulse, supra note 35, at 494.
38 See Derek J. Jardieu, Intellectual Property and Antitrust, 572 Prac. L. Inst. 351, 357 (1999).
39 See Hulse, supra note 35, at 495.
40 See id.
41 35 U.S.C. � 101 (1994).
42 Id. � 103(a).
43 See William Smith, Patent This!, A.B.A. J., Mar. 2001, at 52.
44 See Steven L. Friedman et al., State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.: Seeking the Keys to Cyberspace, 589 Prac. L. Inst. 31, 48 (2000). See generally Hotel Sec. Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co., 160 F. 467 (2d Cir. 1908).
45 See Friedman, supra note 44, at 48.
46 Hotel Sec. Checking, 160 F. at 469.
47 Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Are Methods of Doing Business Finally Out of Business as a Statutory Rejection?, 38 IDEA 403, 404 (1998).
48 See 149 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The Federal Circuit is the exclusive appellate court for patent cases. Appeals, Appellate Jurisdiction-Patent Claims, 16 No. 8 Fed. Litigator 212, Aug. 2001.
49 See 149 F.3d at 1374.
50 Id. at 1373.
51 See id. at 1375.
52 See id.
53 See 172 F.3d 1352, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
54 See id.
55 Friedman, supra note 44, at 53.
56 See id.
57 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 267; Scheinfeld, supra note 1, at 17.
58 See Friedman, supra note 44, at 57.
59 See id.
60 See Richard M. Steuer, Special Sports Issue: Antitrust and the Business of Sports, 14 Antitrust 4, 4 (2000).
61 See Seth H. Ostrow, Is All This Skepticism Warranted, N.Y. L.J., Mar. 27, 2000, � 7.
62 See Smith, supra note 43, at 49.
63 See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc. 73 F. Supp. 2d 1228, 1249 (W.D. Wash. 1999).
64 See Jeffrey A. Berkowitz, Business Method Patents: Everybody Wants to Be a Millionaire, 609 Prac. L. Inst. 7, 36 (2000).
65 Amazon.com, 73 F. Supp. 2d at 1249.
66 See Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
67 See Amazon.com, Inc. v. BarnesandNoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1360–62 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding BarnesandNoble.com mounted serious challenge, based on obviousness in light of prior art, to validity of patent claiming single action method and system for placing purchase order over Internet, precluding preliminary injunction).
68 See Berkowitz, supra note 64, at 25–26.
69 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 268; Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
70 Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 268.
71 Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
72 See id.
73 Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 264.
74 Scheinfeld, supra note 1, at 20–21.
75 Id. at 21.
76 See id.
77 See Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7 (stating that “[s]ome e-commerce patents are labeled ‘absurd’”).
78 Scheinfeld, supra note 1, at 15 (Patent Nos. 5,855,008 and 5,794,210).
79 Id. at 16 (Patent No. 5,761,857).
80 See id.
81 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 268–69.
82 See id. at 268.
83 Id. at 269.
84 See id.
85 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 269.
86 See Raskind, supra note 24, at 84.
87 See id. at 270.
88 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 270.
89 See id.
90 Guffey, supra note 6, at 28.
91 See id.; Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
92 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 274.
93 Scheinfeld, supra note 1, at 22–23.
94 Id.
95 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 274.
96 See id.
97 See id.
98 See id.
99 See id. at 270–71.
100 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 272.
101 See Raskind, supra note 24, at 102.
102 See id.
103 See id.
104 See id.
105 See Guffey, supra note 6, at 26.
106 See id.
107 Raskind, supra note 24, at 67.
108 See Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
109 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 275.
110 See id.
111 See id. at 274.
112 See id.
113 See id. at 280.
114 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 278.
115 Id. at 279.
116 See id. at 278.
117 See, e.g., Robert P. Merges, As Many as Six Patents Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform, 14 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 577, 588 (1999); Scheinfeld, supra note 1, at 23.
118 Merges, supra note 117, at 588.
119 See Scheinfeld, supra note 1, at 23.
120 See id.
121 Roberta J. Morris, Business Method Patents: Good or Bad, Old or New (and Other Miscellaneous Thoughts), 589 Prac. L. Inst. 31, 77, 86–87 (2000).
122 See id.
123 Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
124 See id.
125 See id.
126 Scheinfeld, supra note 1, at 21.
127 35 U.S.C. �� 102–103, 112 (1994).
128 See Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
129 Id.
130 See Wang Lab., Inc. v. Am. Online, 197 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (taking narrow view of patent to find distinctions between two “bookmark” features); Civix-DDI, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. et al., Nos. 00–131, 00–1346, 00–1347, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *717 (D. Col. Jan. 24, 2000) (narrowly construing patent terms and finding mapping software products did not infringe Civix patent).
131 See Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
132 See id.; see also Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 273 (acknowledging growing sentiment toward improvements at the PTO).
133 See Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
134 See Berkowitz, supra note 64, at 9.
135 See id.
136 Id.
137 See id.
138 See id.
139 See Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
140 See id.
141 Id.
142 See Guffey, supra note 6, at 28.
143 See id.
144 See id; see also Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 273 (acknowledging Congress’s attempt to ameliorate situation, but finding remedy inadequate).
145 See Steuer, supra note 60, at 4.
146 See id.; Amazon.com, 73 F. Supp. 2d at 1249.
147 Amazon.com, 73 F. Supp. 2d at 1249.
148 See id.
149 See Amazon.com, 239 F.3d at 1360.
150 See Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
151 See id.
152 See id. (Patent No. 5,806,063).
153 See id.
154 See, e.g., Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 268–75; Raskind, supra note 24, at 84, 101–02.
155 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 268–69.
156 See id. at 270.
157 See id. at 269; Guffey, supra note 6, at 28; Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7; Raskind, supra note 24, at 84.
158 See Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
159 See Berkowitz, supra note 64, at 9.
160 See Berkowitz, supra note 64, at 9; Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
161 See Berkowitz, supra note 64, at 9; Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
162 See State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368, 1375 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
163 35 U.S.C. �� 102, 103, 112 (1994); see State Street, 149 F.3d at 1375 n.10.
164 See Berkowitz, supra note 64, at 9.
165 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 270.
166 See id. at 274.
167 See id.
168 See id.
169 See id. at 270.
170 See Scheinfeld, supra note 1, at 21 (“[A]dequate protections against overbroad monopolies on business methods would be assured by the separate sections of the patent code requiring that patents issue only for novel and non-obvious invention, and mandating that such inventions must be described with specificity and definite scope.”).
171 Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc,. 73 F. Supp. 2d 1228, 1249 (W.D. Wash. 1999).
172 See Hulse, supra note 35 at 494–95 (“Because free trade is a cornerstone of its capitalist economy, the United States has a public policy that strongly disfavors economic monopolies.”).
173 See Raskind, supra note 24, at 67–68.
174 See Guidelines, supra note 21, � 1.0 (“The antitrust laws promote innovation and consumer welfare by prohibiting certain actions that may harm competition with respect to either existing or new ways of serving consumers.”).
175 See Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.
176 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 274; Raskind, supra note 24, at 102.
177 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 274; Raskind, supra note 24, at 102.
178 See id.
179 But see Raskind, supra note 24, at 64.
180 See Scheinfeld, supra note 1, at 24–25.
181 See id.
182 For a discussion of the importance of patents, see Barnes & Noble.com Wins Patent Ruling at http://www.digitalmass.com/news/daily/02/021501/oneclick_patent.html.
183 But see Raskind, supra note 24, at 78 (minimizing “free-riding” and other abusive practices as grounds for granting patent protection to business methods).
184 See Scheinfeld, supra note 1, at 24–25.
185 See id.
186 See Dreyfuss, supra note 22, at 270–71.
187 See Dratler, supra note 32, � 1; Guidelines, supra note 21, � 1.0.
188 See Merges, supra note 117, at 588; Scheinfeld, supra note 1, at 24.
189 See Ostrow, supra note 61, � 7.