Allowing patents to issue on business methods shifts critical resources away
from promoting and protecting truly useful technological advances. As discussed
previously, the patent office has been deluged with business method applications in
recent years. Time spent on such applications is time not spent on applications which
claim true innovations. When already overburdened examiners are forced to devote
significant time to reviewing large numbers of business method applications, the public’s
access to new and beneficial technologies is unjustifiably delayed.
D.
Patenting business methods allows private parties to claim exclusive ownership
of ideas and practices which rightfully belong in the public domain. “It is a matter of
public interest that [economic] decisions, in the aggregate, be intelligent and well
informed. To this end, the free flow of commercial information is indispensable.” Virginia
(1976). Thus, “the stringent requirements for patent protection seek to assure that ideas
in the public domain remain there for the free use of the public.” Aronson v. Quick Point
Pencil Co., 440 U.S. 257, 262 (1979).
Bilski’s claimed method consists essentially of two conversations. The first
conversation is between a commodity provider and a commodity consumer, while the
second conversation is between the provider and “market participants” who have “a
counter-risk position to . . . consumers.” His claims provide almost no details as to the
contents of these conversations.
Like many business method applications, Bilksi’s application is very broadly
drafted. It covers a wide range of means for “hedging” in commodity transactions. If his
2007-1130
19