Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 60

40 

BILSKI v. KAPPOS 

STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment 

swath of technological developments). 

Without  any  legislative  guidance  to  the  contrary,  there
is a real concern that patents on business methods would 
press on the limits of the “standard expressed in the Con-
stitution,”  Graham,  383  U. S.,  at  6,  more  likely  stifling 
progress  than  “promot[ing]”  it.  U. S.  Const.,  Art. I,  §8, 
cl. 8.  I  recognize  that  not  all  methods  of  doing  business 
are  the  same,  and  that  therefore  the  constitutional  “bal-
ance,”  Bonito  Boats,  489  U. S.,  at  146,  may  vary  within 
this  category.    Nevertheless,  I  think  that  this  balance 
generally supports the historic understanding of the term
“process” as excluding business methods.  And a categori-
cal  analysis  fits  with  the  purpose,  as  Thomas  Jefferson 
explained, of ensuring that  “ ‘every one might know  when 
his  actions  were  safe  and  lawful,’ ”  Graham,  383  U. S.,  at 
10; see also Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabu-
shiki Co., 535 U. S. 722, 730–731 (2002) (“The monopoly is
a  property  right;  and  like  any  property  right,  its  bounda-
ries  should  be  clear.    This  clarity  is  essential  to  promote 
progress”);  Diehr,  450  U. S.,  at  219  (STEVENS,  J.,  dissent-
ing) (it is necessary to have “rules that enable a conscien-
tious  patent  lawyer  to  determine  with  a  fair  degree  of 
accuracy” what is patentable). 

On one side of the balance is whether a patent monopoly
is  necessary  to  “motivate  the  innovation,”  Pfaff  v.  Wells 
Electronics,  Inc.,  525  U. S.  55,  63  (1998).    Although  there
is  certainly  disagreement  about  the  need  for  patents,
scholars  generally  agree  that  when  innovation  is  expen-
sive,  risky,  and  easily  copied,  inventors  are  less  likely  to 
undertake  the  guaranteed  costs  of  innovation  in  order  to 
obtain the mere possibility of an invention that others can 
copy.45    Both  common  sense  and  recent  economic  scholar-
ship suggest that these dynamics of cost, risk, and reward 

—————— 

45 See  generally  W.  Landes  &  R.  Posner,  The  Economic  Structure  of

Intellectual Property Law 13–15 (2003).