英语翻译InventorsGivenHopeonPatentsforBusinessMethods15July2010ThisistheVOASpecialEnglishEconomicsReport.Recently,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecidedacaseonthepropertyrightsofinventors.Thequestionwaswhetherabusi

Question

英语翻译
Inventors Given Hope on Patents for Business Methods
15 July 2010
This is the VOA Special English Economics Report.
Recently,the United States Supreme Court decided a case on the property rights of inventors.The question was whether a business method is enough of an invention to receive a patent.Patents are a form of intellectual property.They give legal protections to individuals and companies against the copying of their inventions.
Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw wanted to patent a method to let traders protect against the risk of price changes in energy markets.The United States Patent and Trademark Office said no.
So the inventors went to court.Again they were told no.Finally,the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.Last month,all nine justices said no.
But they only said no to a patent in this case.Patent lawyer Meredith Martin Addy in Chicago explains that the court ruled narrowly.
MEREDITH MARTIN ADDY:"The Supreme Court held that there is no categorical rule denying patent protection for business method patents."
When patent laws were first developed,most patents were for machines.But since the late nineteen nineties,inventors of business methods and processes have increasingly sought patent protection.
Technology companies,especially software makers,watched the case closely.They were concerned that the Supreme Court would require a test of some kind that could limit what can be patented.
In its ruling,the court decided against the patent only because the idea was too abstract.Law professor Michael Meurer of Boston University gives a famous example from physics.It involves the relationship of energy,mass and the speed of light,written as the letter c.
MICHAEL MEURER:"The Supreme Court has said,for example,if Albert Einstein determined that E = mc squared -- which he did -- he never would have been able to get a patent on that.That’s too abstract."
In the Bilski case,the court said patent examiners could consider what is known as the machine-or-transformation test.This is the idea that a patent should be given to a machine or something that creates a material change,like a chemical process.
But a majority of justices said patent examiners must also protect innovation.Patent lawyer Meredith Martin Addy says no one wants to suppress creativity.
MEREDITH MARTIN ADDY:"You can have that test,but it can’t be an exclusive test because of the nature of the patent laws which are to protect new and unknown inventions."
Now,more cases will be needed to define the legal limits of business method patents.Such patents already exist.In March,for example,after re-examination,Amazon.com received a patent for its one-click ordering process.
And that’s the VOA Special English Economics Report,written by Mario Ritter.I’m Steve Ember.

Answer 1

发明家了希望对商业方法专利
2010年7月15日
这是VOA特别英语的经济报道.
最近,美国最高法院决定对发明者的知识产权案件.问题是,商业方法是否是一项发明专利获得足够.专利是知识产权的形式.他们提供法律保护的个人和反对他们的发明复制公司.
伯纳德Bilski和兰德华沙想一个方法专利保护,让投资者对在能源市场价格变动的风险.美国专利和商标局说没有.
因此,发明人走上法庭.他们再次被告知没有.最后,这个案子一直到最高法院.上个月,所有9名法官说没有.
但他们只是说没有在这种情况下专利.专利律师马丁阿迪梅雷迪斯解释说,在芝加哥法院裁定狭隘.
梅勒迪斯丁阿迪：“最高法院认为,没有明确规定不让商业方法专利的专利保护.”
当最初制定专利法,专利最多的机器.但19世纪90年代末以来,业务方法和流程发明家日益寻求专利保护.
科技公司,特别是软件厂商,看着如此密切.他们担心,最高法院将需要某种形式的,可以限制什么可以申请专利的考验.
在其裁决中,法院决定对专利,只是因为当时的想法是过于抽象.法律教授迈克尔梅尔美国波士顿大学给出了一个从物理有名的例子.它涉及到能源的关系,质量和光速的速度,用C写的信
麦梅尔说：“最高法院说,例如,如果爱因斯坦决心= MC的平方 - 他没有 - 他永远不会已经能够得到一个关于该专利的E.这是过于抽象.”
在Bilski案案件中,法院说专利审查员可考虑所谓的机器或转化试验著名.这是一个应给予专利就像一个化学过程,机器或东西,创建一个重大的转变,观念.
但是,大多数的法官也表示,专利审查员必须保护创新.专利律师梅勒迪斯马丁阿迪说,没有人想压制创造力.
梅勒迪斯丁阿迪：“你可以有这种测试,但它不能成为一个因为它的专利法是保护发明新的和未知的自然独占的考验.”
现在,更多的情况下将需要界定商业方法专利的法律限制.这些专利已经存在.今年3月,例如,经过重新审查,Amazon.com收到了一个订购流程单击一个专利.
这就是VOA特别英语的经济报告,是由Mario Ritter编写的.我是史蒂夫恩贝尔.