Abstract
Intellectual property , contract, and tort laws likely have some effects on levels of innovation in service sector s of the economy. Legal rules that are too strong or too strict may discourage investment in service innovation ; yet, rules that are too weak or too loose may result in suboptimal investments in sound innovation. Intellectual property protections have traditionally been quite strong in protecting innovation in manufacturing sectors, but much less so in service sectors. Services have, for example, traditionally been unpatentable because they were perceived to be non-technological. Whether digital information services, such as web services , should be patentable is currently unsettled and highly controversial. Contract and tort rules are currently quite strict as to manufactured goods, but less so as to services.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This article will focus on U.S. law because it is the law that the author knows best, but she believes that the legal principles articulated in the essay are generally applicable in other jurisdictions, particularly those in the developed world.
- 2.
35 U.S.C. sec. 101 (setting forth these categories of patentable subject matter).
- 3.
See 17 U.S.C. sec. 102(a) (copyright protection extends to original works of authorship), 102(b) (excluding methods and processes from the scope of copyright protection). If, however, one develops a computer program to carry out specific services, the program is eligible for copyright protection because the program itself is considered a “literary work” under U.S. and other national copyright laws.
- 4.
17 U.S.C. sec. 101 (defining “fixation”), 102(a) (requiring fixation). In some countries, however, a live performance of music or dance—that is, the service of providing them—do qualify for copyright protection.
- 5.
35 U.S.C. sec. 287.
- 6.
17 U.S.C. sec. 110(5).
- 7.
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S 63 (1972).
- 8.
The two major “SSO” and “look and feel” software cases were: Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986)(copying of file and data structures and manner of operation of some subroutines); Lotus v. Paperback, 740 F. Supp. 37 (D. Mass. 1990) (copying of command hierarchy and feel of spreadsheet program).
- 9.
450 U.S. 175 (1981).
- 10.
The main case is Computer Assoc. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) (Samuelson , 2007).
- 11.
149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
- 12.
Id. at 1373.
- 13.
See, e.g., In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 1001-03 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(Mayer dissent, giving examples of non-technological inventions that had been patented after State Street Bank).
- 14.
See Lab Corp. of Am. v. Metabolite, Inc., 548 U.S. 124 (2006) (Breyer, J., dissenting from dismissal of Lab Corp.’s appeal).
- 15.
“In my view, claim 13 is invalid no matter how narrowly one reasonably interprets [the discovery of a natural phenomenon] doctrine.” Id. at 135.
- 16.
Id. at 126-27.
- 17.
Id. at 127-28, quoting Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948).
- 18.
548 U.S. 388 (2006).
- 19.
In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
- 20.
Id. at 966-76 (Dyk, J., Linn, J. concurring), at 998-1011 (Mayer , J. opinion). Mayer’s opinion is characterized as a dissent, id. at 998, but he agreed with the majority that Bilski’s method was unpatentable. However, he dissented from endorsing the machine/transformation test for patentability endorsed by the majority. Judge Rader similarly agreed that Bilski’s method was unpatentable as an abstract idea, but disagreed with the machine/transformation test announced in the majority opinion. Id. at 1011-15. Only one of the judges would have upheld the patentability of Bilski’s method and continued to endorse the State Street Bank test. Id. at 976-98 (Newman, J. dissenting).
- 21.
Id. at 998.
- 22.
Id. at 1000.
- 23.
Id. at 1000-01. Judge Mayer cited numerous cases as rejecting patent claims for business methods (i.e., services). Id. at 1001-03.
- 24.
This is why some states have adopted “caps” (e.g., no more than $5 million) on punitive damage awards for torts such as negligent design of products.
- 25.
Drafts and supporting materials on proposed Article 2B can be found at http://www.law .upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/ulc.htm
- 26.
The full text of UCITA can be found at http://www.law .upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/ucita/ucita200.htm.
- 27.
UCITA, secs. 402, 403.
- 28.
Id., sec. 404(a).
- 29.
Id., sec. 404(b).
- 30.
Id., sec. 405(a).
- 31.
UCITA, sec. 103(d)(list of exclusions).
- 32.
Id., sec. 3.05.
References
Alces , P. (1999). W(h)ither warranty: the b(l)oom of products liability theory in cases of deficient software design, California Law Review, 87(1): 269-304.
American Law Institute (2008). Principles of the Law of Software Contracts, Tentative Draft, No. 1.
Bitner , M.J., Ostrom , A., and Morgan , F. (2008). Service Blueprinting: A Practical Technique for Service Innovation. California Management Review, 50(3): 66-94.
Bittner, M.J., Brown , S., and Meuter , M. (2000). Technology infusion in service encounters, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1): 139-49.
Cohen , S. (2007). Ontology and taxonomy of services in a service-oriented architecture, Microsoft Architecture Journal, April 2007.
Frei , Frances X. (2006). Breaking the trade-off between efficiency and service. Harvard Business Review, 84(11): 93-101.
Geistfeld , M. A. (2008). Essentials of Tort Law, Aspen Publishers, New York.
Glushko , R.J. & Tabas , L. (2009). Designing service systems by bridging the “front stage” and “back stage,” Information Systems and E-Business Management, 7 (in press).
Gomulkiewicz , R., Nguyen , X.T., Conway-Jones , D. (2008). Licensing Intellectual Property: Law and Applications, Aspen Publishers, New York.
Graham , S.J., Merges , R.P., Samuelson , P., and Sichelman , T. (in press). High Tech Entrepreneurs and the Patent System: Results of the 2008 Berkeley Survey. Berkeley Technology Law Journal.
Hart , C.W.L. (1988). The power of unconditional service guarantees. Harvard Business Review, 66(4): 54-62.
Lashley , C. (1995). Toward an understanding of employee empowerment in hospitality services. International Journal of Contemporary Hospital Management, 7(1): 27-32.
Lerner , J. and Zhu , F. (2005). What is the impact of software patent shifts?: evidence from Lotus v. Borland, Nat’l Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 11168.
Lusch , R.F., Vargo , S.L. and Wessels , G. (2008). Toward a conceptual foundation for service science: contributions from service-dominant logic. IBM Systems Journal: Service Science, Management, and Engineering, 7: 20-41.
Mann , R. (2005). Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry? Texas Law Review, 83(4): 961-986.
O’Rourke , M. (2006). The story of Diamond v. Diehr: toward patenting software, in Jane C. Ginsburg and Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss (eds.), Intellectual Property Stories, Foundation Press, New York.
Owen , D.G. (2007). The evolution of products liability law, Review of Litigation, 26: 955-989.
Parasuraman , A., Zeithaml , V., and Berry , L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for further research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4): 41-50.
Pollack , M. (2002). The multiple unconstitutionality of business method patents, Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 28(1): 61-120.
Samuelson , P. (1990). Benson revisited: the case against patent protection for algorithms and other computer program-related inventions, Emory Law Journal, 39(4): 1025-1154.
Samuelson , P. (1984). CONTU revisited: the case against copyright protection for computer programs in machine-readable form, Duke Law Journal, 1984(4): 663-769.
Samuelson , P. and Graham , S. (2010). Software entrepreneurs and the patent system: Some results of the Berkeley Patent Survey, work in progress
Samuelson , P. (2007). Why Copyright Excludes Systems and Processes From the Scope of Its Protection, Texas Law Review, 85(7): 1921-1977.
Spath , D., Ganz , W., Meiren , T., and Bienzeisler , B. (2008). Service Engineering—A Transdisciplinary Approach in Service Research, in Bernd Stauss, Kai Engelman, Anja Kremer, and Achim Lund (eds.), Services Science Fundamentals, Challenges and Future Developments, 41-53. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York.
Triplett , J.E. and Bosworth , B.P. (2004). Productivity in the U.S. Services Sector: New Sources of Economic Growth, Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C.
White , G.E. (2003). Tort Law in America: An Intellectual History, Oxford University Press, New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Samuelson, P. (2010). What Effects Do Legal Rules Have on Service Innovation ?. In: Maglio, P., Kieliszewski, C., Spohrer, J. (eds) Handbook of Service Science. Service Science: Research and Innovations in the Service Economy. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1628-0_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1628-0_26
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-1627-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-1628-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)