Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 37

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

17 

STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment 

well as a variety of patents issued for methods of synthe-
sizing substances or building mechanical devices.9 

Although it is difficult to derive a precise understanding 
of  what  sorts  of  methods  were  patentable  under  English 
law, there is no basis in the text of the Statute of Monopo-
lies, nor in pre-1790 English precedent, to infer that busi-
ness  methods  could  qualify.10    There  was  some  debate 
throughout the relevant time period about what processes
could  be  patented.  But  it  does  not  appear  that  anyone 
seriously  believed  that  one  could  patent  “a  method  for 
organizing  human  activity.”  545  F. 3d,  at  970  (Dyk,  J., 
concurring).11 

There  were  a  small  number  of  patents  issued  between 
1623 and 1790 relating to banking or lotteries and one for 
a  method  of  life  insurance,12  but  these  did  not  constitute 

—————— 

9 See,  e.g.,  Roebuck  and  Garbett  v.  William  Stirling  &  Son  (H.  L.
1774), reprinted in 1 T. Webster, Reports and Notes of Cases on Letters 
Patent  for  Inventions  45  (1844)  (“method  of  making  acid  spirit  by
burning  sulphur  and  saltpetre,  and  collecting  the  condensed  fumes”); 
id.,  at  77  (“ ‘method  of  producing  a  yellow  colour  for  painting  in  oil  or 
water,  making  white  lead,  and  separating  the  mineral  alkali  from
common  salt,  all  to  be  performed  in  one  single  process’ ”);  see  also  C.
MacLeod,  Inventing  the  Industrial  Revolution:  The  English  Patent
System,  1660–1800,  pp.  84–93,  100–104,  109–110,  152–155  (1988)
(listing patents) (hereinafter MacLeod).

10 Some English cases made reference to the permissibility of patents
over new “trades.”  But so far as I can tell, the term “trade” referred not 
to the methods of conducting business but rather to methods of making
and using physical items or to the object of the trade.  See, e.g., Cloth-
workers  of  Ipswich  Case,  78  Eng.  Rep.  147,  148  (K.  B.  1603)  (“[I]f  a
man  hath  brought  in  a  new  invention  and  a  new  trade  within  the 
kingdom . . . [the King] may grant by charter unto him”). 

11 See  also  Pollack,  The  Multiple  Unconstitutionality  of  Business 
Method  Patents:  Common  Sense,  Congressional  Consideration,  and 
Constitutional  History,  28  Rutgers  Computer  &  Tech.  L. J.  61,  94–96
(2002) (hereinafter Pollack) (describing English practice). 

12 See  id.,  at  95;  B.  Woodcroft,  Alphabetical  Index  of  Patentees  of
Inventions,  from  March  2,  1617  (14  James  I)  to  October  1,  1852  (16 
Victoriae) 383, 410 (2d ed. 1969) (hereinafter Woodcroft).