Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Review of Paradigm Shift in Patent Within Digital Environment and Possible Implications for Economic Development in Africa

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Advances in Information and Communication (FICC 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems ((LNNS,volume 70))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1497 Accesses

Abstract

This study examines the impact of BMP protection on development by focusing on the challenges confronting economic growth in African communities as a result of the new paradigm in patent law. [Africa is used as a single unit in this study but this should not be construed as African homogeneity. Rather the views advanced in this study are used to could be applicable to many communities in Africa.] There are very few study on the impact of BMPs perspectives on economic development particularly in Africa. The purpose of this paper is therefore to review the extent of debates and discourses that has taken place among researchers and policy makers on the impact of BMPs perspectives on economic development in Africa. The paper deems it important to ignite or accelerate debate in this area. As a starting point the paper reviews (from the point of views of legal philosophers, policy makers and decisions of competent courts) the relevant literature, patent legislation particularly the International Treaty, policies and legal judgments. Findings from this study suggest that over and above the various criticisms levelled against the extreme liberal approach to the recognition of business methods as patentable subject matter, there are other specific implications that are associated with such approach. The most critical implication of extending patent protection to business methods is the locking-up of knowledge which may hamper human development in general and economic development in particular. Locking up knowledge that is otherwise necessary for economic advancement and competitiveness may have a negative effect on economic growth by promoting economic exclusion, particularly in African communities. This study suggests that advancing a system of BMP within the African context and the extent of protection linked to business methods is crucial in achieving a sustainable economic growth in Africa. It also suggests that a balance should be struck between the two diametrically opposing views on the protection of business methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Savin, A.: EU Internet Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated, UK (2017)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Ouellette, L.L.: Patent experimentalism. Va. Law Rev. 101, 65 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  3. In re Beauregard (Fed Circuit 1998) 53 F 3d 1583

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pagán, C.O.C.: Business method patents: a controversy for companies. Revista Derecho Puertorriqueño, 50, 239 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Pienkos, J.T.: The Patent Guidebook. American Bar Association (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  6. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of 1995

    Google Scholar 

  7. Allison, J.R., Lemley, M.A., Schwartz, D.L.: Our divided patent system. In: The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 82, p. 1073 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  8. The United States Constitution

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lemley, M.A.: Software patents and return of functional claiming. In: The Robert W. Kastenmeir Lecture, University of Wisconsin Law School (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  10. McNamara, J., Cradduck, L.: Can we protect how we do what we do? A consideration of business method patents in Australia and Europe. Int. J. Law Inf. Technol. 16, 96 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. IP and Competition Review, Final Report of September (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Marsnik, J.S., Thomas, R.E.: Drawing a line in the patent subject-matter sands: does Europe provide a solution to the software and business method patent problem. Int’l Comp. L. Rev. 34, 227 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hulse, R.: Patentability of computer software after State Street Bank & (and) Trust Co v Signature Financial Group Inc: evisceration of the subject matter requirement. UC Davis Law Rev. 33, 491 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Desai, D.R., Magliocca, G.N.: Patent, meet napster: 3D printing and the digitization of things. Georgetown Law J. 102, 1691 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nuno Pires de Carvalho: The Trips Regime of Patent Rights, §27 at 45 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Re Cooper’s Application for a Patent (1901) 19 RPC 53

    Google Scholar 

  17. Commissioner of Patents v Lee (1913) 16 CLR 138

    Google Scholar 

  18. Roger v Commissioner of Patent (1910) 10 CLR 701

    Google Scholar 

  19. IBM’s Application, (IBM’s Application, Re (1999) EPOR 318)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Singer & Singer European Patent Convention 112

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vicom Systems Inc’s Application EPOR 74 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Davis, J.: Intellectual Property Law. Oxford University Press, UK (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  23. European Patent Convention 5 October 1973

    Google Scholar 

  24. Aerotel v Telco Holdings (2014)1 all ER 225 67

    Google Scholar 

  25. Raytheon v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks EWHC 1230 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Autonomy Corporation v The Comptroller General of Patents EWHC (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Quest International v Odour Selection T619/02 (2015) OJ EPO 63

    Google Scholar 

  28. State Street Bank and Trust v Signature Financial Group Inc (Federal Circuit 1998) 141 F 3d 1368

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sohei (T/769 (1995) OJEPO 52)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Fisher, T.J., Signore, P.J.: An opposition to the recently proposed legislation related to business method patents. J. Comput. Inf. Law 397 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Japanese Examination Standards Office, Coordination Division Examination of business-related inventions (Dec 1999). Available at http://www.jpomiti.go.jp/infoe/treatment.htm (date of use: 19 June 2005)

  32. Rai, R.K., Jagannathan, S.: Do business method patents encourage innovation? BC Intell. Prop. Tech. F. (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Heines, M.H.: Patents For Business. Praeger Publisher (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Masur, J.: Patent Inflation. Yale Law J. 121, 470 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Business Methods and Madness: America’s Patents System. The Economist (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  36. In re Schrader 22 F 3d (Fed Cir 1994) 298

    Google Scholar 

  37. USA Patents Act

    Google Scholar 

  38. Diamond v Chakrabarty 447 US 303 (US Supreme Court) (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nack, R., Nägerl, J.S.H., Walder-Hartmann, L.: The “Technical Invention” criterion. In: Haedicke, M.W., Timmann, H. (Hrsg.) A Handbook on European and German Patent Law (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Stern, R.H.: Scope-of-protection problems with patents and copyrights on methods of doing business. Fordham Intell. Prop. Media Ent. L. J. 124 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  41. AT & T Corp. v Excel Communications Inc. 172F. 3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999)

    Google Scholar 

  42. In re Alappat 33 F 3d 1544

    Google Scholar 

  43. Amazon.com, Inc. v Barnesandnoble. Com. Inc. 239F. 3d 1343 Court of Appeals (Fed. Cir. 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Bender, J.: Business Method Patents: The View from the USA. EIPR, p. 378 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Steuer, R.M.: Customer-instigated exclusive dealing. Antitrust Law J. 68, 239 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Berkowitz, B.: Business Method Patents: Everybody Wants to Be a Millionaire. Practising Law Institute, vol. 36, p. 693 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ostrow, S.H.: Is all this skepticism warranted? New York Law J. 39, 7 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Dretfuss, R.C.: Are business method patents bad for business? Santa Clara Comput. High Tech Law J. 263 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Varela, S.L.: Damned if you do, doomed if you don’t: patenting legal methods and its effect on lawyers’ professional responsibilities. Fla. Law Rev. 60, 287 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Posner, R.A.: The law & economics of intellectual property. Daedalus 131, 5 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Raskind, L.J.: State Street Bank decision: the bad business of unlimited patent protection for methods of doing business. Fordham Intell. Prop. Media Ent. L. J. 10, 67 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lessig, L.: Death of cyberspace. Wash Lee Law Rev. 57, 337 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Durham, A.L.: Useful arts in the information age. BYU Law Rev. 1419 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sommer, J.H.: Against cyberlaw. Berkeley Tech Law J. 1145 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Gleick, J.: Patently Absurd. New York Times Magazine, p. 44 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Africa (UNISA), Pretoria, South Africa

    Stephen Odirachukwu Mwim & Tana Pistorius

Authors
  1. Stephen Odirachukwu Mwim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tana Pistorius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Odirachukwu Mwim .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Science and Engineering, Saga University, Saga, Japan

    Kohei Arai

  2. The Science and Information (SAI) Organization, Bradford, UK

    Rahul Bhatia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Mwim, S.O., Pistorius, T. (2020). Review of Paradigm Shift in Patent Within Digital Environment and Possible Implications for Economic Development in Africa. In: Arai, K., Bhatia, R. (eds) Advances in Information and Communication. FICC 2019. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 70. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12385-7_33

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation