Case 9: Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 14:52, 10 March 2011 by Kyle Tennant (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Benson et al. filed for a patent for converting binary coded decimal numbers into pure binary numbers in a method not specific to a certain application or apparatus. They attempted to claim for any use of their system in a general-purpose digital computer. The Supreme Courted granted certiorari to determine whether or not the claim constituted a "process" under U.S. patent law. The claims in question are algorithms, or procedures by which a computer may solve a mathematical problem. In this case, the algorithm converts numbers from one form to the other. New programs may be written based on this basic function of the computer.

The new system converts BCD numbers into pure binary numbers. This means that instead of creating a string of four ones or zeros to represent each individual place in a number, one string of several ones or zeros are used to signify a single, aggregate number. These calculations do not require any new technology or systems; old computers long in use may be used, as well as no computers at all.

Mackay stated that while neither scientific principles nor mathematical formulas may be patented, a new and useful structure developed from the knowledge of such a truth may be. This ruling was another expression of Rubber-Tip Pencil Co., which said in effect that scientific principles are fundamental truths and should not be the sole property of any one person or entity. Other concepts which fall under this category are "phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts." In Funk Bros. Seed Co., the Court stated that only new and useful applications of scientific principles may be patented. Though this patent deals with a "process" and the previous descriptions a "product," the Court applied the same standard.

The claim of a process to convert BCD to pure binary is a sweeping one. Anything from train operation to drivers' license verification can be performed using this process. In this way, the claim of the patent oversteps the boundaries of patent law. In a prior ruling, the Court held that such sweeping generalizations cannot be made because the same result of the application (i.e., the conversion of information) may someday be achieved by a differing process than the one described. The effect must be patented in regard to a particular process: you can't patent a function apart from the functioning product.