Advertisement

Review of Paradigm Shift in Patent Within Digital Environment and Possible Implications for Economic Development in Africa

  • Stephen Odirachukwu MwimEmail author
  • Tana Pistorius
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 70)

Abstract

This study examines the impact of BMP protection on development by focusing on the challenges confronting economic growth in African communities as a result of the new paradigm in patent law. [Africa is used as a single unit in this study but this should not be construed as African homogeneity. Rather the views advanced in this study are used to could be applicable to many communities in Africa.] There are very few study on the impact of BMPs perspectives on economic development particularly in Africa. The purpose of this paper is therefore to review the extent of debates and discourses that has taken place among researchers and policy makers on the impact of BMPs perspectives on economic development in Africa. The paper deems it important to ignite or accelerate debate in this area. As a starting point the paper reviews (from the point of views of legal philosophers, policy makers and decisions of competent courts) the relevant literature, patent legislation particularly the International Treaty, policies and legal judgments. Findings from this study suggest that over and above the various criticisms levelled against the extreme liberal approach to the recognition of business methods as patentable subject matter, there are other specific implications that are associated with such approach. The most critical implication of extending patent protection to business methods is the locking-up of knowledge which may hamper human development in general and economic development in particular. Locking up knowledge that is otherwise necessary for economic advancement and competitiveness may have a negative effect on economic growth by promoting economic exclusion, particularly in African communities. This study suggests that advancing a system of BMP within the African context and the extent of protection linked to business methods is crucial in achieving a sustainable economic growth in Africa. It also suggests that a balance should be struck between the two diametrically opposing views on the protection of business methods.

Keywords

Africa Business Method Patenting Digital economic growth Patent protection 

References

  1. 1.
    Savin, A.: EU Internet Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated, UK (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ouellette, L.L.: Patent experimentalism. Va. Law Rev. 101, 65 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    In re Beauregard (Fed Circuit 1998) 53 F 3d 1583Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pagán, C.O.C.: Business method patents: a controversy for companies. Revista Derecho Puertorriqueño, 50, 239 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pienkos, J.T.: The Patent Guidebook. American Bar Association (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of 1995Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Allison, J.R., Lemley, M.A., Schwartz, D.L.: Our divided patent system. In: The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 82, p. 1073 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The United States Constitution Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lemley, M.A.: Software patents and return of functional claiming. In: The Robert W. Kastenmeir Lecture, University of Wisconsin Law School (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McNamara, J., Cradduck, L.: Can we protect how we do what we do? A consideration of business method patents in Australia and Europe. Int. J. Law Inf. Technol. 16, 96 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    IP and Competition Review, Final Report of September (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marsnik, J.S., Thomas, R.E.: Drawing a line in the patent subject-matter sands: does Europe provide a solution to the software and business method patent problem. Int’l Comp. L. Rev. 34, 227 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hulse, R.: Patentability of computer software after State Street Bank & (and) Trust Co v Signature Financial Group Inc: evisceration of the subject matter requirement. UC Davis Law Rev. 33, 491 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Desai, D.R., Magliocca, G.N.: Patent, meet napster: 3D printing and the digitization of things. Georgetown Law J. 102, 1691 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nuno Pires de Carvalho: The Trips Regime of Patent Rights, §27 at 45 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Re Cooper’s Application for a Patent (1901) 19 RPC 53Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Commissioner of Patents v Lee (1913) 16 CLR 138Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roger v Commissioner of Patent (1910) 10 CLR 701Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    IBM’s Application, (IBM’s Application, Re (1999) EPOR 318)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Singer & Singer European Patent Convention 112Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vicom Systems Inc’s Application EPOR 74 (1987)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davis, J.: Intellectual Property Law. Oxford University Press, UK (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    European Patent Convention 5 October 1973Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aerotel v Telco Holdings (2014)1 all ER 225 67Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raytheon v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks EWHC 1230 (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Autonomy Corporation v The Comptroller General of Patents EWHC (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Quest International v Odour Selection T619/02 (2015) OJ EPO 63Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    State Street Bank and Trust v Signature Financial Group Inc (Federal Circuit 1998) 141 F 3d 1368Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sohei (T/769 (1995) OJEPO 52)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fisher, T.J., Signore, P.J.: An opposition to the recently proposed legislation related to business method patents. J. Comput. Inf. Law 397 (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Japanese Examination Standards Office, Coordination Division Examination of business-related inventions (Dec 1999). Available at http://www.jpomiti.go.jp/infoe/treatment.htm (date of use: 19 June 2005)
  32. 32.
    Rai, R.K., Jagannathan, S.: Do business method patents encourage innovation? BC Intell. Prop. Tech. F. (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heines, M.H.: Patents For Business. Praeger Publisher (2007)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Masur, J.: Patent Inflation. Yale Law J. 121, 470 (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Business Methods and Madness: America’s Patents System. The Economist (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    In re Schrader 22 F 3d (Fed Cir 1994) 298Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    USA Patents ActGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Diamond v Chakrabarty 447 US 303 (US Supreme Court) (1980)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nack, R., Nägerl, J.S.H., Walder-Hartmann, L.: The “Technical Invention” criterion. In: Haedicke, M.W., Timmann, H. (Hrsg.) A Handbook on European and German Patent Law (2014)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stern, R.H.: Scope-of-protection problems with patents and copyrights on methods of doing business. Fordham Intell. Prop. Media Ent. L. J. 124 (1999)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    AT & T Corp. v Excel Communications Inc. 172F. 3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    In re Alappat 33 F 3d 1544Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Amazon.com, Inc. v Barnesandnoble. Com. Inc. 239F. 3d 1343 Court of Appeals (Fed. Cir. 2001)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bender, J.: Business Method Patents: The View from the USA. EIPR, p. 378 (2000)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Steuer, R.M.: Customer-instigated exclusive dealing. Antitrust Law J. 68, 239 (2008)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Berkowitz, B.: Business Method Patents: Everybody Wants to Be a Millionaire. Practising Law Institute, vol. 36, p. 693 (2000)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ostrow, S.H.: Is all this skepticism warranted? New York Law J. 39, 7 (2000)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dretfuss, R.C.: Are business method patents bad for business? Santa Clara Comput. High Tech Law J. 263 (2002)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Varela, S.L.: Damned if you do, doomed if you don’t: patenting legal methods and its effect on lawyers’ professional responsibilities. Fla. Law Rev. 60, 287 (2008)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Posner, R.A.: The law & economics of intellectual property. Daedalus 131, 5 (2002)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Raskind, L.J.: State Street Bank decision: the bad business of unlimited patent protection for methods of doing business. Fordham Intell. Prop. Media Ent. L. J. 10, 67 (1999)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lessig, L.: Death of cyberspace. Wash Lee Law Rev. 57, 337 (2000)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Durham, A.L.: Useful arts in the information age. BYU Law Rev. 1419 (1999)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sommer, J.H.: Against cyberlaw. Berkeley Tech Law J. 1145 (2000)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gleick, J.: Patently Absurd. New York Times Magazine, p. 44 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South Africa (UNISA)PretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations