Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 66

46 

BILSKI v. KAPPOS 

STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment 

speculative schemers who make it their business to watch 
the  advancing  wave  of  improvement,  and  gather  its  foam
in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to 
lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country, without 
contributing  anything  to  the  real  advancement  of  the 
arts.”  Atlantic  Works,  107  U. S.,  at  200.    Yet  business 
method  patents  may  have  begun  to  do  exactly  that.  See 
eBay Inc., 547 U. S., at 396–397 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.).

These  many  costs  of  business  method  patents  not  only 
may  stifle  innovation,  but  they  are  also  likely  to  “stifle 
competition,”  Bonito  Boats,  489  U. S.,  at  146.    Even  if  a 
business method patent is ultimately held invalid, patent
holders may be able to use it to threaten litigation and to 
bully  competitors,  especially  those  that  cannot  bear  the 
costs  of  a  drawn  out,  fact-intensive  patent  litigation.57 
That can take a particular toll on small and upstart busi-
nesses.58   Of  course,  patents  always  serve  as  a  barrier  to
competition for the type of subject matter that is patented. 
But patents on business methods are patents on business 
itself.  Therefore,  unlike  virtually  every  other  category  of 
patents, they are by their very nature likely to depress the
dynamism of the marketplace.59 

—————— 

57 See  generally  Farrell  &  Shapiro,  How  Strong  Are  Weak  Patents?
98  Amer.  Econ.  Rev.  1347  (2008);  Meurer,  Controlling  Opportunistic
and  Anti-Competitive  Intellectual  Property  Litigation,  44  Boston 
College  L.  Rev.  509  (2003);  Moore,  Populism  and  Patents,  82  N. Y.
U. L. Rev. 69, 90–91 (2007). 

58 See  Bessen  &  Meurer  176;  Lessig,  The  Death  of  Cyberspace,  57

Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 337, 346–347 (2000). 

59 Congress and the courts have worked long and hard to create and 
administer  antitrust  laws  that  ensure  businesses  cannot  prevent  each
other  from  competing  vigorously.    If  methods  of  conducting  business 
were  themselves  patentable,  then  virtually  any  novel,  nonobvious 
business method could be granted a federally protected monopoly.  The 
tension  this  might  create  with  our  antitrust  regime  provides  yet  an-
other  reason  for  skepticism  that  Congress  would  have  wanted  the 
patent laws to extend to business methods.