2010年的第二篇文章選自于08年2月26號的《經濟周刊》

　　鏈接：http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_09/b4073068471067.htm。

　　第二篇文章有關法律學，談到了支付方式的專利權，專利權受到威脅以及專利權申請的法律重重障礙。

　　原文如下(加粗部分為真題節選部分)：

　　A Pending Threat to Patents

　　A case before an appeals court could make it harder to win legal protection for business methods by Michael Orey

　　Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com (AMZN) received one for its "one-click" online payment system. Merrill Lynch (MER) got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.

　　Now the nation's top patent court appears poised to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Feb. 15 said it would use a case pending before it to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bilski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D. Crouch, a patent professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. It "has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents."

　　EXPLOSION IN FILINGS

　　Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that ushered in such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank (STT) case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by nascent Internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their portfolios, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM (IBM) noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment firms armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.

　　The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should "reconsider" its State Street Bank ruling.

　　The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for "inventions" that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are "reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court," says Harold C. Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

重磅推薦

2010年考研答案試題

考后第一時間：2010年考研答案試題解析專題

·視頻：2010年1月考研試題答案名師點評匯總

·2010考研查分、復試分數線、調劑信息發布預告

·2010年1月9日考研試題答案交流專區

·2010年考研模擬考場 考后第一時間提供在線估分

·2010年考研成績查詢、調劑信息短信提醒開通