Friday, November 03, 2006

Should Legal Methods Be Denied Patents?

A lot of buzz was created when the New York Times came out against tax strategy patents in an editorial published on October 31 (see earlier 271Blog post here). Putting aside the aversion to business method patents themselves, a central concern of tax strategy patent critics is that these patents have the potential to create huge problems for end-users, since the patents are more closely aligned with man-made regulatory law then they are with laws of nature. Accordingly, given the right scope of a particular patent, an end-user could be faced with the option of (1) paying more money in taxes, or (2) paying money for legal advice and a potential a license to use a patented tax-saving strategy.

Andrew Schwartz from Wachtell Lipton published a draft article recently, called "The Patent Office Meets the Poison Pill: Why Legal Methods Cannot Be Patented." Andrew correctly points out that the Patent Office views legal methods as just a type of business method, and hence patentable under State Street. Thus, the Patent Office has granted patents for specific type of legal method patent, namely methods of avoiding or minimizing tax liability under the federal Internal Revenue Code.

However, Schwartz contends that there appears to be no relevant distinction between tax strategies and other types of legal methods, such as corporate structures or litigation techniques. Being a construct of positive law (or a "law of man"), they should not be held out as statutory subject matter, since the patentability of something should depend from its function under a law of nature, regardless of whether or not a regulatory law allows the invention to be legally practiced.

Schwartz points out that legal methods per se are distinguishable from business methods, since most, if not all, novel business methods either improve economic efficiency, or utilize or harness a law of nature, for human benefit. Accordingly, the current legal position on business methods is a workable model that should remain relatively undisturbed. However, when it comes to patents relating to legal methods, very few of the policy justifications for patent protection exist. For one, economic theory suggests that the nature of methods that are primarily focused on complying with legal methods are not susceptible to concepts of "innovation" like other areas. Second, legal methods cannot be kept secret, and thus cannot suffer detrimental effects when patenting is denied altogether:

Our legal system reveres precedent, and novel legal structures or techniques are generally frowned upon. Hence, by their nature, legal methods only become valuable once they have been approved—in public—by a court or regulator. During any period when a legal method is maintained as a secret, it is, in a sense, inchoate, and practically worthless until it receives official sanction. A tax strategy that has never been tested in court or approved by the IRS, for example, may not be worth the paper upon which it is printed, because it could at any moment be deemed by the government to be invalid.

When the poison pill was first introduced, for example, its legality—and thus utility—under state (particularly Delaware) law was unclear, and few companies had been willing to adopt it. After the Delaware Supreme Court, in Moran v. Household Int’l Inc., upheld the poison pill as proper under that state’s corporate law, however, its legitimacy was established, and it became widely used.

As soon as a legal method is approved by the government, it suddenly becomes valuable. But, at that very moment, the legal method also becomes part of the generally applicable law that everyone is expected to know, and obliged to follow. It would therefore be most inappropriate, and possibly even violative of Due Process—to give a private party the power to exclude others from employing a legal method that she pioneered.

There is a minor nit that warrants some picking here, that is not based on the premise of the article, but rather on the practical considerations surrounding the filing and enforcement of patents. The article does a good job distinguishing between legal methods, and patents related to regulated industries (such as the UNOCAL reformulated gasoline patent that overlapped into California's low-emissions law). However, tax strategy and other legal method patents will rarely, if ever, claim the law or regulatory provision itself that is pertinent to the legal practice of the invention. In other words, no one will claim "a tax-favored annuity, governed by section 403(b), purchased by 501(c)(3) organizations, comprising . . ." Patent law disfavors the explicit citation of standards or regulations within the body of claims, since the changing nature of most standards would render such a claim indefinite. But without this type of language, it is would be extremely difficult to argue that a "legal method" was being claimed.

Nevertheless, it is an insightful article that is worthy of a read, and can be viewed here.

As an aside, it appears that at least one (literal) legal method has already been granted by the USPTO - US Patent 6,607,389, "Systems and methods for making jury selection determinations" (this one's good for a laugh).

See also US Patent Publication 20030040996, "System and method for managing concentration of corporate debt" (discussing issuances of debt securities and remedies for currently traded debt securities, depending on the capital structure of the corporation, that can be adopted by the Board, like a Poison Pill) - currently this application was successfully appealed, but remains rejected under 101 and 112 issues, as well as a 103 rejection - see prosecution history here.

2 Comentários:

B said...

All of these arguments have already been made regarding all of the novelties of patenting since the mid-90s. Law should be an open road, not a toll road? Same with the Internet, but every web page, including this one, has patents that apply to it. An `invention' must be based on a law of nature? Can you think of anything more man-made than the price of a share in an artificial agglomeration of artificial agglomerations of legal corporations? But that's the State Street patent. There's no need for an economic incentive with regard to legal compliance? There's even less need to invent incentives for a profit-making method, yet that argument has also been ignored with respect to business methods. Too much patent protection can impede rather than promote progress? Gosh, have you picked up a newspaper lately?

Finally, I think that the distinction between the logic and analysis of a legal method and the logic and analysis of a mathematical method is just arbitrary. Here's Donald Knuth on the matter:

Nor is it possible to distinguish between ``numerical'' and "nonnumerical'' algorithms, as if numbers were somehow different from other kinds of precise information. All data are numbers, and all numbers are data.

In the mid-1990s, the CAFC declared that information designs, like computer algorithms or business flowcharts, are patentable. The rulings met with a great deal of resistance---and this is why. Now that the idea of physical inventiveness has been eliminated from the requirements for patentability, we have no other limits on patentability to replace it. You've commented before that storylines shouldn't be patentable, and here you seem to agree that legal compliance methods shouldn't be patentable, but our author's valiant attempts notwithstanding, there's no line---certainly no bright line---between those information desigsn and those that are patent-blessed.

But on the positive side, I'm happy to see that the patent community is finally beginning to consider arguments as to why patents on software and business methods are bad policy, even if it is in an article that makes the politic choice of not disputing those things head-on.

Anonymous said...

I am slowly becomming more comfortable with tax method patents and other types of human law (as apposed to the laws of physics) compliance methods. However, most conversations focus on patentability. What about enforcability. Isn't it possible that even if it is not the patent offices job to deny a patent(juicywhip)that it may interfer with the government's authority to make laws to encourage behavior, or the states soverienty(patets are issued by the fed.), or the individuals due process rights? If so, maybe these methods are patentable but not enforceable?


This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Use of the Blog does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and Peter Zura or his firm. Persons requiring legal advice should contact a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of Peter Zura and does not convey his, or his past or present employer(s) approval, support, endorsement or any relationship to any site or organization.

The 271 Patent Blog © 2008. Template by Dicas Blogger.