2 Patents on methods of doing busin

2 Patents on methods of doing business on the Internet ( Internet
patents) have been the subject of intense debate and criticism for a number of
years. [FN5] Indeed, since 1998, when the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit held that there was no per se exclusion of these Internet-implemented
methods from the realm of patentable subject matter, [FN6] many have questioned
the wisdom of the decision and sought to have its result altered. [FN7] In
addition to the issue of subject matter eligibility for patenting, critics have
questioned whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has improvidently
granted patents on Internet processes that appear at first glance to be
obvious, thus failing one of the key requirements for patentability. [FN8] The
importance of the Internet as a rapidly growing commercial platform combined
with concerns for an open and free Internet added to the intensity of these
debates.


*3 Despite the importance of these debates, there has been relatively
little empirical study of Internet patents, and no study of the increasing
litigation in which they have been involved. In one of the few studies of the
patents themselves, Allison and Tiller analyzed the quality of Internet
patents by comparing them to other kinds of patents. [FN9] They built a data
set of 1,093 Internet-implemented process patents and compared many of their
characteristics with those of a randomly selected set of 1,000
contemporaneously issued patents from the general population of patents (non-
Internet patents, or NIPs). [FN10] Their purpose was to test empirically the
merits of the many criticisms of these patents, all of which had been made
without the support of any data. Measuring a number of characteristics that
previous research had associated with patent quality and private economic
value, such as the total number of claims and prior art references, as well as
several other characteristics first employed by the authors, the study found
that Internet patents appeared to be of higher average quality and value than
the average patent. [FN11]

*4 Researchers in economics and law have compiled evidence to support a
link between the economic value of patents to their owners (private patent
value) and litigation propensity. [FN12] In 2004 Allison, Lemley, Moore, and
Trunkey (ALMT) conducted the most comprehensive comparison yet made of
litigated and unlitigated patents. [FN13] Measuring a number of patent
characteristics that had been linked to litigation propensity and private
economic value, as well as some characteristics not previously considered but
that logically might suggest value and a greater likelihood of litigation, the
authors found that litigated patents were a completely different breed than
those that had not been involved in litigation. With a high degree of
significance, the authors found that litigated patents, compared with
unlitigated ones, contained more claims and more references to prior U.S.
patents, foreign patents, and other kinds of publications ("nonpatent prior
art"), and were cited more often as prior art by subsequent patents (i.e., they
had more "forward citations"). They were disproportionately represented in some
technology areas and in some industries. They were also much more likely to
have originally been issued to individuals and small businesses, and to be
owned by domestic rather than foreign entities. Further, they had spent much
more time in "prosecution" (examination within the PTO) from their original
filing dates than unlitigated patents, primarily as a result of patent
applicants having invested more in continuing applications leading to the
generation of multiple patents on closely related inventions--a patent
portfolio that can have greater value than the sum of its parts. [FN1

Results (Indonesian) 2:

2 Paten metode melakukan bisnis di Internet (Internet
paten) telah menjadi subyek perdebatan yang intens dan kritik untuk beberapa
tahun. [FN5] Memang, sejak tahun 1998, ketika Pengadilan Banding untuk Federal
Circuit menyatakan bahwa tidak ada pengecualian per se of-dilaksanakan Internet ini
metode dari alam materi pelajaran dipatenkan, [FN6] banyak yang mempertanyakan
kebijaksanaan keputusan dan berusaha untuk memiliki hasil yang diubah. [FN7] Di
samping masalah kelayakan materi pelajaran untuk mematenkan, kritikus telah
mempertanyakan apakah US Patent dan Trademark Office (PTO) telah improvidently
diberikan paten pada proses Internet yang muncul pada pandangan pertama menjadi
jelas, sehingga gagal salah satu kunci persyaratan untuk paten. [FN8] The
pentingnya internet sebagai platform komersial berkembang pesat dikombinasikan
dengan kekhawatiran untuk internet terbuka dan bebas ditambahkan ke intensitas ini
perdebatan. * 3 Meskipun pentingnya perdebatan ini, ada relatif sedikit studi empiris paten Internet , dan tidak ada studi tentang peningkatan litigasi di mana mereka telah terlibat. Dalam salah satu dari beberapa studi tentang paten sendiri, Allison dan Tiller menganalisis kualitas Internet paten dengan membandingkannya dengan jenis lain dari paten. [FN9] Mereka membangun data set 1.093-dilaksanakan Internet paten proses dan dibandingkan banyak mereka karakteristik dengan orang-orang dari satu set yang dipilih secara acak dari 1.000 paten serentak dikeluarkan dari populasi umum paten (non paten Internet, atau NIP). [FN10] Tujuan mereka adalah untuk menguji secara empiris manfaat dari banyak kritik dari paten tersebut, yang semuanya telah dibuat tanpa dukungan data. Mengukur sejumlah karakteristik yang penelitian sebelumnya telah dikaitkan dengan kualitas paten dan ekonomi swasta nilai, seperti jumlah total klaim dan referensi terdahulu, serta beberapa karakteristik lain pertama kali digunakan oleh penulis, studi ini menemukan bahwa paten Internet tampaknya menjadi kualitas rata-rata yang lebih tinggi dan nilai dari paten rata-rata. [FN11] * 4 Peneliti di bidang ekonomi dan hukum telah mengumpulkan bukti-bukti untuk mendukung hubungan antara nilai ekonomi paten kepada pemiliknya (paten swasta value) dan litigasi kecenderungan. [FN12] Pada tahun 2004 Allison, Lemley, Moore, dan Trunkey (ALMT) melakukan perbandingan yang paling komprehensif belum terbuat dari perkara dan unlitigated paten. [FN13] Mengukur sejumlah paten karakteristik yang telah dikaitkan dengan litigasi kecenderungan dan swasta nilai ekonomi, serta beberapa karakteristik yang sebelumnya tidak dianggap tetapi yang logis mungkin menyarankan nilai dan kemungkinan lebih besar litigasi, para peneliti menemukan bahwa paten perkara adalah berkembang biak sama sekali berbeda dari orang-orang yang tidak terlibat dalam proses pengadilan. Dengan tingkat tinggi penting, penulis menemukan bahwa perkara paten, dibandingkan dengan orang-orang unlitigated, terdapat lebih klaim dan lebih referensi US sebelum paten, paten asing, dan jenis lain dari publikasi ("sebelum nonpatent art "), dan dikutip lebih sering seni sebelumnya oleh paten berikutnya (yaitu, mereka memiliki lebih banyak "kutipan maju"). Mereka tidak proporsional di beberapa bidang teknologi dan di beberapa industri. Mereka juga lebih mungkin untuk awalnya telah dikeluarkan untuk individu dan usaha kecil, dan harus dimiliki oleh badan dalam negeri ketimbang asing. Selanjutnya, mereka telah menghabiskan banyak waktu di "penuntutan" (pemeriksaan dalam PTO) dari aslinya tanggal pengajuan paten dari unlitigated, terutama sebagai akibat dari paten pelamar telah menginvestasikan lebih dalam aplikasi terus mengarah ke generasi beberapa paten pada erat terkait penemuan - paten portofolio yang dapat memiliki nilai lebih besar daripada jumlah bagian-bagiannya. [Fn1