Abstract
An enduring principle of intellectual property law is that one cannot patent an abstract idea. It was true in 1854, when the Supreme Court denied Samuel Morse, inventor of the telegraph, a patent claim that would have covered any means of using electromagnetism to transmit printed messages. It was still true in 2010, when, in the much anticipated Bilski v. Kappos case, the Supreme Court held that a method of hedging risks in commodities sales transactions was not patentable subject matter. The abstract ideas exclusion is one of the few categorical limitations of patentable subject matter, and it stands now as an important restraint on the growth of intellectual property rights in business methods and computer programming. Yet, in an important sense, every patent claims an abstract idea. The subject matter of a patent is an invention. An invention is a concept—an idea for new technology. What, then, do courts mean when they hold that abstract ideas are ineligible for patenting?
Recommended Citation
Durham, Alan L.
(2011)
"The Paradox of “Abstract Ideas”,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2011:
No.
3, Article 3.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2011/iss3/3