論商業(yè)方法的專利保護
發(fā)布時間：2019-04-26 00:04
【摘要】：近年來，隨著商業(yè)模式的不斷創(chuàng)新和計算機網(wǎng)絡(luò)技術(shù)的快速發(fā)展，與計算機軟件和網(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，給企業(yè)帶來利潤的同時，也帶來了關(guān)于保護與侵權(quán)的爭議。各個國家相繼采取不同政策應(yīng)對。美國通過1998年的STATE STREET BANK案首開商業(yè)方法專利保護的大門，日本及時跟進，歐盟在最初的反對之后，順應(yīng)趨勢，自1999年起開始為商業(yè)方法提供專利保護。雖然美日歐等各國相繼將商業(yè)方法納入專利保護，但各國采取了不同的專利審查標準。近年來，在全球經(jīng)濟一體化的形勢下，國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局也采取了一些行動，由過去的消極應(yīng)對變?yōu)楝F(xiàn)在的積極采取措施。嚴峻的現(xiàn)實告訴我們，商業(yè)方法專利的保護機制刻不容緩。 本文通過對幾個典型案例的簡析，引出本文的爭議點。即1998年7月的道富銀行信托公司訴簽記金融集團公司案（State Street Bank），此案揭開了美國商業(yè)方法專利保護的序幕，然而在2008年的的比爾斯基(In re Bilski)案中，美國聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院放棄了State Street Bank案中判定標準，提出較為嚴格的機器或轉(zhuǎn)換標準，借以限制商業(yè)方法專利。在各國相繼打開商業(yè)方法專利大門，我國沒有采取相應(yīng)政策，2002年《南方周末》披露的“花旗銀行搶注專利事件”引起銀行界的軒然大波，這場風(fēng)波終結(jié)于國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局復(fù)審委員會“專利申請無效”決定，然而2010年歲，風(fēng)波又起，商業(yè)方法專利圍剿與反商業(yè)方法專利圍剿在第三方支付市場又拉開了帷幕。通過這四個案例，引出三個問題：商業(yè)方法專利概念該如何界定，授予商業(yè)方法專利的必要性，以及我國應(yīng)對商業(yè)方法專利化的措施。本文圍繞這三個問題結(jié)合實際案例進行探討，通過對商業(yè)方法專利保護制度與實踐進行分析研究，試圖找到我國的應(yīng)對之道。
[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】：沈陽師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.42
本文編號：2465576
[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】：沈陽師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.42
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條
1 沙海濤;電子商務(wù)商業(yè)方法軟件的專利保護(上)[J];電子知識產(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)的可專利性——以花旗銀行的專利申請為例[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2003年12期
3 陳曉,倪頌軍;商業(yè)銀行專利保護現(xiàn)狀分析與策略研究[J];時代法學(xué);2005年02期
4 高山行,胡海平;試論商業(yè)方法的專利保護[J];情報雜志;2004年08期
5 朱玲娣;邢錦暉;;中外商業(yè)方法專利保護之比較研究[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;計算機軟件知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護的反思與超越[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)方法的專利保護問題研究[D];西南財經(jīng)大學(xué);2007年
2 郭潤春;商業(yè)方法專利實質(zhì)性條件研究[D];山東大學(xué);2006年
3 高旭;網(wǎng)絡(luò)時代商業(yè)方法專利保護問題研究[D];對外經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易大學(xué);2006年
，本文編號：2465576
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2465576.html
最近更新
教材專著
