Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
Page Number: 63

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

43 

STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment 

hard  to  see  how  the  public  would  be  benefited  by  disclo-
sure”  of  certain  business  tools,  since  the  nondisclosure  of 
these  tools  “encourages  businesses  to  initiate  new  and 
individualized plans of operation,” which “in turn, leads to 
a greater variety of business methods.”  Bicron, 416 U. S., 
at 483. 

In any event, even if patents on business methods were 
useful for encouraging innovation and disclosure, it would 
still  be  questionable  whether  they  would,  on  balance, 
facilitate  or  impede  the  progress  of  American  business. 
For  even  when  patents  encourage  innovation  and  disclo-
sure, “too much patent protection can impede rather than
‘promote  the  Progress  of  . . .  useful  Arts.’ ”  Laboratory 
Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc., 
548  U. S.  124,  126–127  (2006)  (BREYER,  J.,  dissenting 
from  dismissal  of  certiorari).  Patents  “can  discourage 
research  by  impeding  the  free  exchange  of  information,”
for  example,  by  forcing  people  to  “avoid  the  use  of  poten-
tially  patented  ideas,  by  leading  them  to  conduct  costly
and  time-consuming  searches  of  existing  or  pending  pat-
ents, by requiring complex licensing arrangements, and by
raising  the  costs  of  using  the  patented”  methods.    Id.,  at 
127.  Although “[e]very patent is the grant of a privilege of 
exacting  tolls  from  the  public,”  Great  Atlantic,  340  U. S., 
at  154  (Douglas,  J.,  concurring),  the  tolls  of  patents  on 
business methods may be especially high. 

The  primary  concern  is  that  patents  on  business  meth-
ods  may  prohibit  a  wide  swath  of  legitimate  competition
and  innovation.  As  one  scholar  explains,  “it  is  useful  to 
conceptualize  knowledge  as  a  pyramid:  the  big  ideas  are
on  top;  specific  applications  are  at  the  bottom.”  Dreyfuss 
275.  The  higher  up  a  patent  is  on  the  pyramid,  the
greater  the  social  cost  and  the  greater  the  hindrance  to
further  innovation.53   Thus,  this  Court  stated  in  Benson 

—————— 

53 See Dreyfuss 276; Merges & Nelson, On the Complex Economics of