美欧金融商业方法专利保护比较研究及其启示
|
摘要
近年来国内外金融商业方法专利申请量大幅提高,而发达国家的优势企业不断通过专利扩张来占据金融行业的制高点。在此背景下,本文在对美国和欧洲1997-2010年金融商业方法进行系统统计和比较分析的基础上,采用案例研究,统计分析,国别比较和经验研究等方法对金融商业方法专利保护的审查制度,结构特征和维权机制进行了分析。
首先,本文分析了美国和欧洲的金融商业方法专利审查制度上的异同。研究发现,美国和欧洲的金融商业方法专利审查制度在1998年后得到了快速发展。在此快速发展的过程中,美国和欧洲都曾面对层出不穷的问题,而它们采用了不同的方法来解决。而一个好的审查制度,对金融商业方法专利的申请有很大的促进作用。
其次,本文从宏观和微观两个方面分析了美国和欧洲金融商业方法专利的结构特性。研究发现,宏观方面,金融商业方法专利的申请量和授权量在最近几年都得到了很大提高,而美国的垄断优势愈发明显。微观方面,通过对美国和欧洲金融商业方法专利的主要申请者的分析,可以看出美国的金融机构在金融创新和知识产权保护方面远远领先于欧洲和其他国家。
然后,本文分析了美国和欧洲的维权机制。因为相对于其它专利,金融商业方法专利面对的争议特别多,这很大程度上是由于这种专利的产生的时间还很短。而这些争议导致了维权机制的重要性。本文通过对美国和欧洲在诉讼维权和异议维权的研究,提出了维权机制在美国和欧洲的不同。然后通过实例分析,反映出美国和欧洲商业方法的判例法的巨大作用。
最后,本文对美国在欧洲的金融商业方法专利保护的主要影响因素进行了经验分析。其结果表明：审查制度和维权机制对金融商业方法专利保护具有重要意义。在此基础上,本文分析了中国金融商业方法的现状和问题,并总结了美欧金融商业方法专利保护对中国的启示。
In recent years, domestic and international financial business method patents (BMPs) applications increased dramatically, and competitive enterprises in developed countries continue to hold the commanding heights of the financial sector through the expansion BMPs strategy. In this context, based on the statistics and comparative analysis of United States and Europe financial BMPs 1997-2010, this paper analyzes the examination system of determining financial BMPs protection, its structure and corresponding rights protection mechanism, through case studies, statistical analysis, comparisons and empirical research methods.
Firstly, we analyze the differences of financial BMPs examination system between U.S. and European. Study found that U.S. and European financial BMPs examination system obtained a rapid development since 1998. During this period, problems came out one after another for both U.S. and Europe and many different methods were used to solve them. And a good examination system will greatly promote the applications of financial BMPs.
Secondly, we analyze the both the macro and micro factors of the U.S. and European financial BMPs structural characteristics. Study found that:At macro level, financial BMP applications and authorization have been greatly improved in recent years, while the U.S. dominance became more apparent. At micro level, through the analysis of the main applications from U.S. and European financial BMP, we can see that U.S. financial institutions in financial innovation and intellectual property protection are far ahead of Europe and other countries.
Then, we analyze the U.S. and Europe rights protection mechanisms. Compare to other patents, it remains great controversy for financial BMP. And this is due to the history of this kind of patent production is still very short. These controversies led to the importance of the rights protection mechanism. Through the research of the U.S. and the European BMP litigation and opposition activists, we found the rights protection mechanisms in the U.S. and Europe are different. Then we use case analysis to reflect the significant role of case law of the U.S. and European BMP.
Finally, we empirically analyze the main factors of financial BMPs protection in the U.S. and the European. The results indicate that:the examination system and the rights protection mechanisms are crucial important for BMPs. On this basis, we analyze Chinese current status and problems of financial BMPs, and summarize the inspiration of the U.S. and European financial BMPs protection for China.
首先,本文分析了美国和欧洲的金融商业方法专利审查制度上的异同。研究发现,美国和欧洲的金融商业方法专利审查制度在1998年后得到了快速发展。在此快速发展的过程中,美国和欧洲都曾面对层出不穷的问题,而它们采用了不同的方法来解决。而一个好的审查制度,对金融商业方法专利的申请有很大的促进作用。
其次,本文从宏观和微观两个方面分析了美国和欧洲金融商业方法专利的结构特性。研究发现,宏观方面,金融商业方法专利的申请量和授权量在最近几年都得到了很大提高,而美国的垄断优势愈发明显。微观方面,通过对美国和欧洲金融商业方法专利的主要申请者的分析,可以看出美国的金融机构在金融创新和知识产权保护方面远远领先于欧洲和其他国家。
然后,本文分析了美国和欧洲的维权机制。因为相对于其它专利,金融商业方法专利面对的争议特别多,这很大程度上是由于这种专利的产生的时间还很短。而这些争议导致了维权机制的重要性。本文通过对美国和欧洲在诉讼维权和异议维权的研究,提出了维权机制在美国和欧洲的不同。然后通过实例分析,反映出美国和欧洲商业方法的判例法的巨大作用。
最后,本文对美国在欧洲的金融商业方法专利保护的主要影响因素进行了经验分析。其结果表明：审查制度和维权机制对金融商业方法专利保护具有重要意义。在此基础上,本文分析了中国金融商业方法的现状和问题,并总结了美欧金融商业方法专利保护对中国的启示。
In recent years, domestic and international financial business method patents (BMPs) applications increased dramatically, and competitive enterprises in developed countries continue to hold the commanding heights of the financial sector through the expansion BMPs strategy. In this context, based on the statistics and comparative analysis of United States and Europe financial BMPs 1997-2010, this paper analyzes the examination system of determining financial BMPs protection, its structure and corresponding rights protection mechanism, through case studies, statistical analysis, comparisons and empirical research methods.
Firstly, we analyze the differences of financial BMPs examination system between U.S. and European. Study found that U.S. and European financial BMPs examination system obtained a rapid development since 1998. During this period, problems came out one after another for both U.S. and Europe and many different methods were used to solve them. And a good examination system will greatly promote the applications of financial BMPs.
Secondly, we analyze the both the macro and micro factors of the U.S. and European financial BMPs structural characteristics. Study found that:At macro level, financial BMP applications and authorization have been greatly improved in recent years, while the U.S. dominance became more apparent. At micro level, through the analysis of the main applications from U.S. and European financial BMP, we can see that U.S. financial institutions in financial innovation and intellectual property protection are far ahead of Europe and other countries.
Then, we analyze the U.S. and Europe rights protection mechanisms. Compare to other patents, it remains great controversy for financial BMP. And this is due to the history of this kind of patent production is still very short. These controversies led to the importance of the rights protection mechanism. Through the research of the U.S. and the European BMP litigation and opposition activists, we found the rights protection mechanisms in the U.S. and Europe are different. Then we use case analysis to reflect the significant role of case law of the U.S. and European BMP.
Finally, we empirically analyze the main factors of financial BMPs protection in the U.S. and the European. The results indicate that:the examination system and the rights protection mechanisms are crucial important for BMPs. On this basis, we analyze Chinese current status and problems of financial BMPs, and summarize the inspiration of the U.S. and European financial BMPs protection for China.
引文
1、资料来源：http://www.epo.org/about-us/organisation/member-states.httnl检索日期：2011年2月15日
2、资料来源：新华网http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2011-03/10/c_l 21169410.htm
3、资料来源：http://oami.europa.eu/
4、资料来源：http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/bilski_guidance_27ju12010.pdf
5、资料来源：http://ec.europa.eu/intemal_market/indprop/patent/consultation_en.htm
6、资料来源：http://www.cipnews.com.cn/showArticle.asp?Articleid=l 8818
7、资料来源：国家知识产权局http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo2008/wqyz/gwdt/201103/t20110309_585839.html
8、数据来源：U.S.C. §1338 Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition
9、数据来源：U.S.C. § 1295 Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
10、资料来源：Savatore Anastasi and Kevin Alan Wolff; Interllectual Prop; Law Ass'N. Report of the Economic Survey 2005,1108 to 1110; Sept,2005
11、资料来源：Ray Black, Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Pinch, Managing Intell. Prop., May 1,2005, at 26
12、资料来源：http://www.jltp.uiuc.edu/archives/holderman.pdf
13、资料来源：http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
14、数据来源：http://www.internationalpropertyrightsindex.org/userfiles/Data%20Sources.pdf
15、数据来源：http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.pdf
16、资料来源：国家知识产权http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo2008/ztzl/ywzt/zlsd/200812/t20081204_428899.html http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo2008/ztzl/ywzt/zlsd/200812/t20081212_429889.html
[1]张韬略.英美和东亚三国(地)专利制度历史及其启示[J].科技与法律,2003,(1)：103-114.
[2]张平.商业方法软件专利保护：美国的实践及其启示[J].法商研究,2005,(4)：138-145.
[3]陈丰其.浅析我国金融机构自主创新中商业方法的专利保护[J].海南金融,2006,214(9)：63-65.
[4]张玉蓉,余翔.美国金融商业方法专利实证分析及其对我国的启示[J].知识产权,2008,(2)：70-78.
[5]张玉蓉,袁春生和余翔.金融商业方法专利诉讼行为之经验研究[J].科研管理,2010,(7)：119-126.
[6]贾丹明.欧洲商业方法专利分析[J].中国发明与专利,2007,(5)：68-70.
[7]邱洪华,唐春.美日银行业商业方法专利比较研究及其启示[J].情报杂志,2008,(11)：94-98.
[8]杨中楷,孙玉涛.外国在华专利申请影响因素实证分析[J].科技管理研究,2008,(12)：455-457.
[9]Joseph, Straus and Simon Klopschinski王增岩,黄洪佳译.当前金融危机下的商业方法保护和其他专利法问题[M].专利法研究,2009,知识产权出版社,114-133.
[10]Anastasi, Savatore and Kevin Alan Wolff. Am. Intellectual Prop. Law Ass'n Report of the Economic Survey[J]. Intellectual Prop,2005,Vol.34,No.34,pp.12-34.
[11]Black, Ray. Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Pinch[J]. Managing Intellectual Property,2005, No.34, pp.26.
[12]Fink, E. Matthew. Patenting Business Methods in Europe:What Lies Ahead?[J]. Indiana Law Journal,2004, Vol.299, No.79, pp.299-321.
[13]Hall, H. Bronwyn and Megan MacGarvie. The Private Value of Software Patent[D].2006,NBER Working Paper, No. W12195.
[14]Hall, B. H., Thoma, G, and Torrisi, S. Financial Patenting in Europe [J]. European Management Review,2009, No.6, pp.45-63.
[15]Hall, B. H. Business and Financial Method Patents, Innovation, and Policy [J]. Scottish Journal of Political Economy,2009, Vol.56, No.4, pp.443-473.
[16]Holderman, JF. The Patent Litigation Predicament in the United States[J]. JL Tech.& Pol'y,2007, No.3, pp.4-6.
[17]Hunt, R. M. Business Method Patents and U.S. Financial Services[J], Contemporary Economic Policy,2010, Vol.28,No 3, pp.322-352.
[18]Komulainen, Mari and Tuomas Takalo. Does State Street lead to Europe? The Case of Financial Exchange Innovations[D].2009, Working Paper, No.22/2009.
[19]Lerner, J. Where does State Street Lead? A First Look at Finance Patents,1971 to 2000[J]. Journal of Finance,2002, Vol.57, No.2, pp.901-930.
[20]Lerner, J. The Litigation of Financial Innovations[D].2008, NBER Working Paper, No. W14324.
[21]Mejer, Malwina. Economic Incongruities in the European Patent System [D]. 2009, Working Paper, No.2009/01.
[22]Merges, P. Robert. The Uninvited Guest:Patents on Wall Street[D].2003, Working Paper, No.126.
[23]Merges, P. Robert, Peter.S. Menell and Mark A. Lemley. Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age[M],2003, Published by Aspen Law& Business.
[24]Meurer J. Michael and Bessen, E. James. Do Patents Perform Like Property?[D] 2008,Working Paper, No.08-08.
[25]Raskind, J. Leo. The State Street Bank Decision:The Bad Business of Unlimited Patent Protection for Method of Doing Business[J]. Entertainment Law Journal,1999, Vol.225,No.29,pp.61-104.
[26]Tufano, Peter. Financial Innovation and First-mover Advantages [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,1989,No.25, pp.213-240.
[27]Wagner, S. Business Method Patents in Europe and their Strategic Use-Evidence from Franking Device Manufacturers[J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2008, Vol.17, pp.173-174.
2、资料来源：新华网http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2011-03/10/c_l 21169410.htm
3、资料来源：http://oami.europa.eu/
4、资料来源：http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/bilski_guidance_27ju12010.pdf
5、资料来源：http://ec.europa.eu/intemal_market/indprop/patent/consultation_en.htm
6、资料来源：http://www.cipnews.com.cn/showArticle.asp?Articleid=l 8818
7、资料来源：国家知识产权局http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo2008/wqyz/gwdt/201103/t20110309_585839.html
8、数据来源：U.S.C. §1338 Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition
9、数据来源：U.S.C. § 1295 Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
10、资料来源：Savatore Anastasi and Kevin Alan Wolff; Interllectual Prop; Law Ass'N. Report of the Economic Survey 2005,1108 to 1110; Sept,2005
11、资料来源：Ray Black, Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Pinch, Managing Intell. Prop., May 1,2005, at 26
12、资料来源：http://www.jltp.uiuc.edu/archives/holderman.pdf
13、资料来源：http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf
14、数据来源：http://www.internationalpropertyrightsindex.org/userfiles/Data%20Sources.pdf
15、数据来源：http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.pdf
16、资料来源：国家知识产权http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo2008/ztzl/ywzt/zlsd/200812/t20081204_428899.html http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo2008/ztzl/ywzt/zlsd/200812/t20081212_429889.html
[1]张韬略.英美和东亚三国(地)专利制度历史及其启示[J].科技与法律,2003,(1)：103-114.
[2]张平.商业方法软件专利保护：美国的实践及其启示[J].法商研究,2005,(4)：138-145.
[3]陈丰其.浅析我国金融机构自主创新中商业方法的专利保护[J].海南金融,2006,214(9)：63-65.
[4]张玉蓉,余翔.美国金融商业方法专利实证分析及其对我国的启示[J].知识产权,2008,(2)：70-78.
[5]张玉蓉,袁春生和余翔.金融商业方法专利诉讼行为之经验研究[J].科研管理,2010,(7)：119-126.
[6]贾丹明.欧洲商业方法专利分析[J].中国发明与专利,2007,(5)：68-70.
[7]邱洪华,唐春.美日银行业商业方法专利比较研究及其启示[J].情报杂志,2008,(11)：94-98.
[8]杨中楷,孙玉涛.外国在华专利申请影响因素实证分析[J].科技管理研究,2008,(12)：455-457.
[9]Joseph, Straus and Simon Klopschinski王增岩,黄洪佳译.当前金融危机下的商业方法保护和其他专利法问题[M].专利法研究,2009,知识产权出版社,114-133.
[10]Anastasi, Savatore and Kevin Alan Wolff. Am. Intellectual Prop. Law Ass'n Report of the Economic Survey[J]. Intellectual Prop,2005,Vol.34,No.34,pp.12-34.
[11]Black, Ray. Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Pinch[J]. Managing Intellectual Property,2005, No.34, pp.26.
[12]Fink, E. Matthew. Patenting Business Methods in Europe:What Lies Ahead?[J]. Indiana Law Journal,2004, Vol.299, No.79, pp.299-321.
[13]Hall, H. Bronwyn and Megan MacGarvie. The Private Value of Software Patent[D].2006,NBER Working Paper, No. W12195.
[14]Hall, B. H., Thoma, G, and Torrisi, S. Financial Patenting in Europe [J]. European Management Review,2009, No.6, pp.45-63.
[15]Hall, B. H. Business and Financial Method Patents, Innovation, and Policy [J]. Scottish Journal of Political Economy,2009, Vol.56, No.4, pp.443-473.
[16]Holderman, JF. The Patent Litigation Predicament in the United States[J]. JL Tech.& Pol'y,2007, No.3, pp.4-6.
[17]Hunt, R. M. Business Method Patents and U.S. Financial Services[J], Contemporary Economic Policy,2010, Vol.28,No 3, pp.322-352.
[18]Komulainen, Mari and Tuomas Takalo. Does State Street lead to Europe? The Case of Financial Exchange Innovations[D].2009, Working Paper, No.22/2009.
[19]Lerner, J. Where does State Street Lead? A First Look at Finance Patents,1971 to 2000[J]. Journal of Finance,2002, Vol.57, No.2, pp.901-930.
[20]Lerner, J. The Litigation of Financial Innovations[D].2008, NBER Working Paper, No. W14324.
[21]Mejer, Malwina. Economic Incongruities in the European Patent System [D]. 2009, Working Paper, No.2009/01.
[22]Merges, P. Robert. The Uninvited Guest:Patents on Wall Street[D].2003, Working Paper, No.126.
[23]Merges, P. Robert, Peter.S. Menell and Mark A. Lemley. Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age[M],2003, Published by Aspen Law& Business.
[24]Meurer J. Michael and Bessen, E. James. Do Patents Perform Like Property?[D] 2008,Working Paper, No.08-08.
[25]Raskind, J. Leo. The State Street Bank Decision:The Bad Business of Unlimited Patent Protection for Method of Doing Business[J]. Entertainment Law Journal,1999, Vol.225,No.29,pp.61-104.
[26]Tufano, Peter. Financial Innovation and First-mover Advantages [J]. Journal of Financial Economics,1989,No.25, pp.213-240.
[27]Wagner, S. Business Method Patents in Europe and their Strategic Use-Evidence from Franking Device Manufacturers[J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2008, Vol.17, pp.173-174.