Because "business methods" are abstract!
If it must be tangible in the
sense of having physical form... no business method is embodied in physical
That's the illusion. For those of us willing to give benefit of
doubt, when pointed to the thought:
It's possible there could be some
totally new, unique, useful business method that deserves patentability
we do that which we are inclined: give it benefit of doubt that it's
Until we realize the truth is pretty simple:
concepts are not patent eligible subject matter
business methods are
business methods are not patent eligible
It doesn't matter how unique, useful, creative, or any other
positive adjective the "business method" is. No one questions the value in
E=MC2. That doesn't make it any less the abstract concept and
If it's unpatentable subject matter - there
really is no need to examine any of the other limiting factors in Patent Law.
To consider those relative to non patentable subject matter is to imagine the
non-patentable is patentable after all. And you start to give truth to the lie
when you start to view it that way.
I think that's why so many
pro-software patent lawyers want the question moved to other limiting factors of
Patent Law. So the abstract question isn't examined and the lie is given to the
material making what should be unpatentable patentable.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]