development of machines and procedures in order to enhance or improve human
conditions.’’)
;
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1777 (4th ed.
2000) (“Technology” is the “application of science, especially to industrial or commercial
objectives.”); see also Sfekas, supra at 214-15 (“The [Supreme] Court’s holdings in
Benson and Diehr are really stating a requirement that inventions must be
technological.”); Schwartz, supra at 357 (The “clear and consistent body of Supreme
Court case law establishes that the term ‘invention’ encompasses anything made by
man that utilizes or harnesses one or more ‘laws of nature’ for human benefit.”). As the
Supreme Court has made clear, “the act of invention . . . consists neither in finding out
the laws of nature, nor in fruitful research as to the operation of natural laws, but in
discovering how those laws may be utilized or applied for some beneficial purpose, by a
process, a device or a machine.” United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S.
178, 188 (1933).
Methods of doing business do not apply “the law of nature to a new and useful
end.” Because the innovative aspect of such methods is an entrepreneurial rather than
a technological one, they should be deemed ineligible for patent protection. See, e.g.,
John R. Thomas, The Patenting of the Liberal Professions, 40 B.C. L. Rev. 1139 (1999)
(arguing that affording patentability to business methods opens the door to obtaining
patent protection for all aspects of human thought and behavior, and that patents should
remain grounded in science and technology) (hereinafter “Thomas (1999)”).
“[T]he
primary purpose of our patent laws is not the creation of private fortunes for the owners
of patents but is ‘to promote the progress of science and useful arts.’” Motion Picture
Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co.
,
243 U.S. 502, 511 (1917). Although business
2007-1130
11