Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 65.0

Cite as:  561 U. S. ____ (2010) 

45 

STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment 

487–488  (2004)  (hereinafter  Long).  But  as  we  have  long 
explained,  patents  should  not  “embaras[s]  the  honest
pursuit  of  business  with  fears  and  apprehensions  of  con-
cealed liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexa-
tious accountings for profits made in good faith.”  Atlantic 
Works v. Brady, 107 U. S. 192, 200 (1883).55 

These effects are magnified by the “potential vagueness” 
of  business  method  patents,  eBay  Inc.,  547  U. S.,  at  397 
(KENNEDY,  J.,  concurring).  When  it  comes  to  patents,
“clarity is essential to promote progress.”  Festo Corp., 535 
U. S.,  at  730–731.  Yet  patents  on  methods  of  conducting
business  generally  are  composed  largely  or  entirely  of 
intangible  steps.  Compared  to  “the  kinds  of  goods  . . . 
around which patent rules historically developed,” it thus
tends  to  be  more  costly  and  time  consuming  to  search
through, and to negotiate licenses for, patents on business
methods.  See Long 539, 470.56 

The breadth of business methods, their omnipresence in
our  society,  and  their  potential  vagueness  also  invite  a
particularly  pernicious  use  of  patents  that  we  have  long 
criticized.  As early as the 19th century, we explained that 
the  patent  laws  are  not  intended  to  “creat[e]  a  class  of 
—————— 

55 There is substantial academic debate, moreover, about whether the 
normal  process  of  screening  patents  for  novelty  and  obviousness  can
function  effectively  for  business  methods.    The  argument  goes  that
because business methods are both vague and not confined to any one 
industry,  there  is  not  a  well-confined  body  of  prior  art  to  consult,  and
therefore many “bad” patents are likely to issue, a problem that would
need  to  be  sorted  out  in  later  litigation.    See,  e.g.,  Dreyfuss  268–270;
Eisenberg, Analyze This: A Law and Economics Agenda for the Patent
System, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 2081, 2090 (2000); Merges 589–590. 

56 See also J. Bessen & M. Meurer, Patent Failure: How Judges, Bu-
reaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk 46–72 (2008) (hereinaf-
ter Bessen & Meurer); P. Menell & S. Scotchmer, Intellectual Property
Law,  in  2  Handbook  of  Law  and  Economics  1500–1501,  1506  (M. 
Polinsky  &  S.  Shavell  eds.  2007).    Concededly,  alterations  in  the  rem-
edy structure, such as the First Inventor Defense Act of 1999, §4301 et 
seq., 113 Stat. 1536, codified at 35 U. S. C. §273, mitigate these costs.