【摘要】：近年來(lái)，隨著商業(yè)模式的不斷創(chuàng)新和計(jì)算機(jī)網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)的快速發(fā)展，與計(jì)算機(jī)軟件和網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)相關(guān)的有創(chuàng)意的商業(yè)方法也就不斷涌現(xiàn)出來(lái)，給企業(yè)帶來(lái)利潤(rùn)的同時(shí)，也帶來(lái)了關(guān)于保護(hù)與侵權(quán)的爭(zhēng)議。各個(gè)國(guó)家相繼采取不同政策應(yīng)對(duì)。美國(guó)通過(guò)1998年的STATE STREET BANK案首開(kāi)商業(yè)方法專(zhuān)利保護(hù)的大門(mén)，日本及時(shí)跟進(jìn)，歐盟在最初的反對(duì)之后，順應(yīng)趨勢(shì)，自1999年起開(kāi)始為商業(yè)方法提供專(zhuān)利保護(hù)。雖然美日歐等各國(guó)相繼將商業(yè)方法納入專(zhuān)利保護(hù)，但各國(guó)采取了不同的專(zhuān)利審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。近年來(lái)，在全球經(jīng)濟(jì)一體化的形勢(shì)下，國(guó)家知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)局也采取了一些行動(dòng)，由過(guò)去的消極應(yīng)對(duì)變?yōu)楝F(xiàn)在的積極采取措施。嚴(yán)峻的現(xiàn)實(shí)告訴我們，商業(yè)方法專(zhuān)利的保護(hù)機(jī)制刻不容緩。 本文通過(guò)對(duì)幾個(gè)典型案例的簡(jiǎn)析，引出本文的爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)。即1998年7月的道富銀行信托公司訴簽記金融集團(tuán)公司案（State Street Bank），此案揭開(kāi)了美國(guó)商業(yè)方法專(zhuān)利保護(hù)的序幕，然而在2008年的的比爾斯基(In re Bilski)案中，美國(guó)聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院放棄了State Street Bank案中判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，提出較為嚴(yán)格的機(jī)器或轉(zhuǎn)換標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，借以限制商業(yè)方法專(zhuān)利。在各國(guó)相繼打開(kāi)商業(yè)方法專(zhuān)利大門(mén)，我國(guó)沒(méi)有采取相應(yīng)政策，2002年《南方周末》披露的“花旗銀行搶注專(zhuān)利事件”引起銀行界的軒然大波，這場(chǎng)風(fēng)波終結(jié)于國(guó)家知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)局復(fù)審委員會(huì)“專(zhuān)利申請(qǐng)無(wú)效”決定，然而2010年歲，風(fēng)波又起，商業(yè)方法專(zhuān)利圍剿與反商業(yè)方法專(zhuān)利圍剿在第三方支付市場(chǎng)又拉開(kāi)了帷幕。通過(guò)這四個(gè)案例，引出三個(gè)問(wèn)題：商業(yè)方法專(zhuān)利概念該如何界定，授予商業(yè)方法專(zhuān)利的必要性，以及我國(guó)應(yīng)對(duì)商業(yè)方法專(zhuān)利化的措施。本文圍繞這三個(gè)問(wèn)題結(jié)合實(shí)際案例進(jìn)行探討，通過(guò)對(duì)商業(yè)方法專(zhuān)利保護(hù)制度與實(shí)踐進(jìn)行分析研究，試圖找到我國(guó)的應(yīng)對(duì)之道。
[Abstract]:In recent years, with the continuous innovation of business models and the rapid development of computer network technology, creative business methods related to computer software and network technology have emerged constantly, bringing profits to enterprises at the same time. It has also brought controversy about protection and infringement. Various countries have adopted different policies one after another. The United States opened the door to patent protection for business methods through the 1998 STATE STREET BANK case. Japan followed up in a timely manner. After the initial objections, the EU followed the trend and began to provide patent protection for business methods since 1999. Although the United States, Japan, Europe and other countries have incorporated business methods into patent protection, countries have adopted different patent examination standards. In recent years, in the global economic integration situation, the State intellectual property Office has also taken some actions, from the past negative response to the present active measures. The grim reality tells us that the protection mechanism of business method patent is urgent. Through the brief analysis of several typical cases, this paper leads to the controversial points of this paper. That is, in July 1998, the State Street Bank Trust Company v. signature Financial Corporation case, (State Street Bank), opened the prelude to the patent protection of American business methods. However, in the Bilsky (In re Bilski) case in 2008, The Federal Circuit Court of Appeal waived the criteria in the State Street Bank case and proposed stricter machine or conversion criteria to limit patents on business methods. Countries have opened the door to patent patents for business methods one after another, and China has not adopted corresponding policies. The "Citibank pre-emptive Patent incident" disclosed in "Southern weekend" in 2002 caused a great stir in the banking world. The storm ended with a decision by the State intellectual property Office's Review Board to "invalidate" patent applications. However, at the age of 2010, the storm began again, with business methods patent encirclement and anti-business methods patent encirclement and suppression in the third-party payment market again. Through these four cases, three questions are drawn: how to define the concept of business method patent, the necessity of granting business method patent, and the measures to deal with the patenting of business method in China. This paper discusses these three problems combined with practical cases, through the analysis of the business method patent protection system and practice, tries to find out the way to deal with it in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：沈陽(yáng)師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.42

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 沙海濤;電子商務(wù)商業(yè)方法軟件的專(zhuān)利保護(hù)(上)[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2003年02期

2 劉景明;論商業(yè)方法、商業(yè)方法軟件及系統(tǒng)的可專(zhuān)利性——以花旗銀行的專(zhuān)利申請(qǐng)為例[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2003年12期

3 陳曉,倪頌軍;商業(yè)銀行專(zhuān)利保護(hù)現(xiàn)狀分析與策略研究[J];時(shí)代法學(xué);2005年02期

4 高山行,胡海平;試論商業(yè)方法的專(zhuān)利保護(hù)[J];情報(bào)雜志;2004年08期

5 朱玲娣;邢錦暉;;中外商業(yè)方法專(zhuān)利保護(hù)之比較研究[J];世界科技研究與發(fā)展;2006年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 曹偉;計(jì)算機(jī)軟件知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的反思與超越[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 丁麗;電子商務(wù)商業(yè)方法的專(zhuān)利保護(hù)問(wèn)題研究[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2007年

2 郭潤(rùn)春;商業(yè)方法專(zhuān)利實(shí)質(zhì)性條件研究[D];山東大學(xué);2006年

3 高旭;網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代商業(yè)方法專(zhuān)利保護(hù)問(wèn)題研究[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：2465576