Abstract
Business method patents represent a very recent, and controversial, expansion of patent law. While patent law has traditionally been confined to new inventions and technological developments, business method patents (or business process patents) are essentially patents on methods of doing business. As this essay will argue with reference to case law and critical analyses, business method patents represent a highly controversial, and in some cases illegitimate, expansion of the domain of traditional patent law. However, the necessity for some form of patent protection for the innovative business methods developed for the Internet suggest that some reform of existing patent law is important to the future growth and stability of e-business and e-commerce which is an increasingly important sector of our global economy.

From the Paper
Business Method Patents: Case Law and Controversies Business method patents represent a very recent, and controversial, expansion of patent law. While patent law has traditionally been confined to new inventions and technological developments, business method patents (or business process patents) are essentially patents on methods of doing business. As this essay will argue with reference to case law and critical analyses, business method patents represent a highly controversial, and in some cases illegitimate, expansion of the domain of traditional patent law. However, the necessity for some form of patent protection for the

Tags:law, cyber, business

Abstract
The paper discusses Flavia's three important patents; one for a machine that dispenses beverages made by injecting a liquid into a packet containing other beverage-producing materials, another for a sachet that is comprised of two laminates which are heat-sealed together, and the third for a process to treat roasted coffee. The paper also lists the various trademarks associated with Flavia and with Mars, Inc. The paper relates that Flavia allowed Mars to become a pioneer of single-serving hot beverage dispensers in the growing office coffee industry.

From the Paper
"Flavia is a brand of coffee-related products owned by Mars Inc, the candy bar maker. Relating to Flavia are three important patents. The first is 5,272,960. This is for a machine that dispenses beverages made by injecting a liquid (hot water) into a packet containing other beverage-producing materials. The device was invented by Robert N. Kinna of Bramley Green, England. It is presently owned by Mars, Inc. The patent was filed on November 1, 1990 and was issued December 28, 1993. This invention has several other unique features. One is that the devise uses liquid pressure to open a seam in the sachet. The seam is weakened with a heat source prior to opening to prevent explosion. The heat source is either hot liquid or a radiant source. The machine is typically used to make hot chocolate. There are several independent claims associated with this patent. The broadest of these includes any number of different sources of heat to break the sachet seal, including a hot wire or steam from a hot water tank. This process can also be conducted with the aid of an activator, and that activator may come with an automatic deactivation function or not."

Tags:beverages, liquids, sachets, water, cup

Abstract
This paper examines patents. It considers their purpose and their influence on manufacturing. It also examines their future and the information industry.

Abstract
This paper briefly talks about the origins of the U.S. patent system and then describes the underlying basis for patenting laws, explains how patents differ from copyrights and trademarks, looks at current considerations in patenting law, and describes some of the global issues regarding patents, as well as issues between the United States and Japan concerning patents.

Theoretical Basis for Patent and Copyright Grants
Differences between Patent and Copyright
Current Considerations
Total Patents Issued
Problems with Patents
Global Patent Environment
US-Japan Patent Issues

From the Paper
"The United States Patent system is almost as old as the nation: President George Washington signed the bill leading to its creation on April 10, 1790. It was the first time in history that the right of an inventor to profit from his 'intellectual property' had been recognized by law. Until that time, in Europe at least and in the colonies, inventors merely had privileges regarding their inventions, privileges that could be withdrawn at the monarch's whim. Occasionally, special acts of a legislature would grant some rights, also, but the process could hardly be called as system, and was capricious and applied unequally at best."

Tags:constitution, government, granting, thomas, jefferson, proposal, rights, intellectual, property

Abstract
This paper explores the history of federal patent law from the position that the patent office has helped to encourage ingenuity as much as it has helped to protect the rights and the property of the inventor. Through addressing the history of the patent office, it is shown that the very act of patenting has helped in promoting new concepts and the creation and execution of new products.

Abstract
This paper discusses whether the cloning procedure can be patented. The arguments of those who claim that current patent law may include humans, and those opposing this claim, are presented. The legal issues facing the U.S. Patent and Trade Office are outlined.

From the Paper
"An article published in the New York Times, on May 17, 2002, entitled "Debate on Human Cloning Turns to Patents" presents both sides of an issue raised over whether a patent request, currently in the US patent office, covers human cloning in its definition. The article presents both sides of the issue. The author himself takes no position, but only presents the arguments presented on both sides of the issue. Neither side presents a clear, well supported, independent argument or dependent argument. They both rely on pseudoarguments to make their appeals.
The two opposing positions can be summarized as follows. The pro-cloning patent side, who coincidentally are the inventors of the procedure in question, argue that they wish to hold the patent so that no one actually uses it for humans. Currently the procedure is only being used for pigs (Pollack, 2002). . They argue the fine points of the language, in that it covers all "mammals" and humans are mammals. Their logic is that if the patent covers mammals, and humans are mammals, then the patent covers humans. This is a dependent argument, but is not clearly supported. Previous patents on cloning specifically excluded cloning humans, this one did not. It specifically mentions the use of human eggs."

Tags:embryo, mammal, animal, human, pigs, slavery, bacteria

Abstract
Although both are pieces in the intellectual property puzzle, they are treated in dissimilar ways, which is why differences exist between the two properties. This paper looks at the relationship between a patent and intellectual property and how it is unique in the sense that it depends on how the patent is used. It discusses how some may think that a patent is the most useful tool in intellectual property, but trademarks are just as necessary. Along with keeping up appearances, trademarks also have a social side effect of improving the quality of language.

From the Paper
" "Good trademarks do not wear out or expire. Well-chosen marks become more valuable as goodwill grows. Trademarks are often the most important assets of established businesses." Patents and trademarks, though they are both major players in intellectual property, have some very distinct differences. Patent laws protect inventions and discoveries, whereas trademarks protect unique symbols or words that "identify for consumers the goods and services manufactured or supplied by particular persons or firms" (Fisher 11/30/98). For example, a patent will protect the invention itself (a tire), and the trademark will protect the name of it (Firestone). Patents were created to increase and protect innovation. They allow the creator to have a temporary monopoly on selling the good so s/he may recoup the cost of invention. Trademarks, however, were fashioned to increase and protect good will for the firm. They move toward creating and then sustaining a customer base. Trademarks also have the side effects of improving the quality of language. Patents do not improve the quality of language, but do improve "the quality of life" per se provided a patent persuades individuals to act in accordance with the good of society. Patents encourage individuals to invent, innovate, and create things that somehow are useful, efficient, and new to the world."

Tags:bentham, good, hegel, intellectual, locke, markets, property, rawls, rights, warranty

Abstract
This work examines the issue of human stem cell research from the view of the medical profession with an eye on funding, the public perspective and legislation affecting research of the human genome. Specifically this work explores the patenting process, whether patenting the human genome is plausible, and what consequences might exist in these patents. The paper notes the veritable quietness of the legal community at large in relation to this medical research issue.

Outline:
Abstract
Objective
Terms & Definitions of Study
Introduction
I. Implications of Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
II. Implications of Later Cases
III. Free Market System Impacts
IV. What Ways Do Patents Objectify Human Dignity?
V. Is there a 'just' way of thinking about intellectual property law?
VI. Rights - Technological
VII. Ethics of Patenting the Technique for Human Stem Cell Lines
Summary & Conclusion
Bibliography

From the Paper
"In review of the patent laws in the United States, the U.S. Patent laws provides that the patent begin on the date that the patent is issued and ends 20 years later on the same date however, in special circumstances that date might be different and patents are considered for extensions as well. In order for issuance of a patent the invention must be a process that is both 'new' and 'useful' and must be a 'process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter' furthermore the invention must bee the standards of 'utility, novelty and non-obviousness' and must be something that is not in use publicly, not in written form or known to others in the same field of study."

Tags:legal, implications, medical, research, professionals, patent, restrictions

Abstract
The U.S. Patent Office has recently granted at a patent to the company Pfizer for its miracle drug "Viagra", but the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe have thrown out Pfizer's patent application after examination. The paper examines the way Pfizer patented the way "Viagra" blocks a certain enzyme in the body as well as the composition of the drug, but as two different patents. It explores the difficulty in patenting drugs due to the complex language surrounding patent law. The paper examines several examples of infringement of this law with regard to "Viagra", as well as the difference in patent applications in Germany, Britain and the United States.

From the Paper
"Idea theft is an interesting concept because it is an intangible good, whereas chemical composition is a tangible good, but the research that went into creating the compound needs to be rewarded and did begin with a great idea. Inventors have the incentive to invent by being first to market, to achieve the intangible, all powerful, good will of the consumer. Idea theft can cover the elements within the pill, Viagra, but not to the way it is necessarily used by the body. For example, one cannot patent pill swallowing, but the U.S. Patent Office will stretch to patent the way a pill awakens a man's "willie". Lessig pointed out a very profound question about intellectual property rights to the Internet world, but new technology does not exist solely within the computer sector. When our society undergoes a transition to a new technology (i.e., the Internet, business process patents, drug-use patents), we need to revise the length at which monopoly power is extended and ask ourselves "whether that power makes sense. Is it necessary" Is there reason to believe it will do some good?? (216). In this case, the patent does nothing but hinder invention and impede scientific innovation. Monopolistic power does not make sense outside the boundaries of business, which the Viagra patent clearly is."

Tags:PDE-5, Cialis, Levitra

Abstract
In this article, the writer introduces, discusses and analyzes the topic of biology and biodiversity. Specifically the writer discusses the possibility of patenting living things and looks at what the limitations are on this patenting process. The writer explains that living things can be patented, but there are certain limitations on the patenting process. The writer also notes that there are numerous ethical issues surrounding the patenting of living things, and the morality of this practice comes into question. However, the ethics of this practice remain in question. The writer concludes that the Patent office should have guidelines that severely restrict the issuing of patents on living things, because living things, especially humans, should never become a commodity.

From the Paper
"This created impetus to patent all types of living things, from bacterium to the Harvard mouse, and today, patents are routinely granted on living things, seemingly without any thought. The Patent office does not allow the patenting of a human being, but in the case of the law on mammal cloning, humans are not excluded from the language of the patent, which leaves the patent open to human as well as other types of mammal cloning. Therefore, the Patent office is sending mixed messages with its granting of patents, and it could be conceivable that the office would support a patent for human beings in the future. This is a frightening thought for many people who do not support the idea of cloning humans on both religious and moral grounds, and it will certainly lead to a public outcry if it occurs."

Tags:scientists, animal, dilemma, mammals