金融商业方法专利策略研究
|
摘要
在现代市场经济中,金融活动已经成为整个经济活动的基础和核心,在一国经济发展中处于举足轻重的地位。由于金融创新产品往往联系着做贸易的方法,涉及智力活动的规则和方法,一直以来被排除在可专利主题之外。所以专利在金融行业中一直起着非常有限的作用。随着计算机和网络技术的发展,商业方法可专利性的障碍逐渐消除。商业方法获得专利保护,无疑为金融企业通过专利的形式保护其金融创新产品以及增强企业竞争优势提供了更好的途径,同时,也使得同行业的市场竞争和创新竞争更加激烈。
本文在国内外相关文献研究的基础上,综合运用基于资源基础观的企业持续竞争优势理论、专利战略理论和商业方法专利理论,采用规范研究、比较研究和实证研究相结合的方法,对商业方法专利法律制度框架及其对金融企业专利行为的影响、金融商业方法专利组合策略、金融企业专利动机及其专利诉讼策略等问题进行了全面而深入地研究,得出了具有一定理论价值和实践价值的观点和结论。
本文首先基于专利战略理论,建立了金融企业专利策略运用的分析框架。本文把金融企业专利策略运用看作是一个大的系统,包括企业内部系统和外部系统。从企业内部来看,金融企业专利策略的运用主要包括专利监控、专利获取和专利实施等相互密切联系的三个领域。从外部系统来看,金融企业专利策略的运用在很大程度上要受到商业方法专利法律制度和金融行业贸易环境的影响。
商业方法专利法律制度问题是金融企业专利策略运用的法律基础。论文对美国、欧盟和我国的商业方法专利制度框架和审查实践及其对金融企业专利行为的影响进行了比较研究。美国对于商业方法专利的授权标准最为宽松,而欧盟关于商业方法专利的“技术性”要求是其法律制度的最主要特征。我国商业方法专利法律制度在很大程度上借鉴了欧盟的标准,并且比欧盟更为严格。商业方法专利法律制度对金融企业的专利行为产生重大影响。在此法律框架下,美国金融领域商业方法专利申请和授权量最多,金融企业的专利策略运用也更为积极。
基于专利组合理论,通过专利信息分析得出,非金融机构在金融领域进行战略布局,抢占竞争优势,非金融机构的专利布局构成了对金融机构的主要威胁;私人和小企业持有金融商业方法专利的数量要高于其它行业;金融商业方法基础专利集中度很强;尽管非金融机构在金融领域进行专利布局,但金融机构在金融创新中仍占据优势。金融企业已经纷纷通过构建专利组合策略应对竞争。
金融企业的专利获取动机包括防御性战略、进攻性战略以及交易战略。此外,一种新的金融专利战略模式“专利钓饵”战略在金融行业的运用越来越普遍。这种新的故意“被侵权”金融专利战略模式可能对技术创新产生阻碍作用,并且加剧了“专利丛林”现象。与其它行业相比,金融企业可能遭受更多专利诉讼的影响。在金融专利诉讼中,金融企业通常不是原告,而是被告。该研究表明:在金融行业等与计算机软件有关的复杂性技术行业,企业申请专利的主要目的和动机是用于许可、交叉许可以及把专利作为提高谈判地位的筹码。
商业方法专利价值和专利公开程度对于金融专利诉讼行为有显著的影响。价值越大的专利,诉讼的可能性越大。公开越多的专利,诉讼的可能性也越大。在专利价值的影响因素中,专利被引证量以及专利权利要求量对于专利诉讼行为的影响要高于专利家族的影响。而在专利公开的专利文献引证和非专利文献引证两个影响因素中,引证的专利文献对于金融商业方法专利诉讼行为的影响要大于非专利文献。进一步研究发现,在专利质量不同时,专利公开对于诉讼行为的影响存在差异。当专利质量较低时,该专利引证的专利技术文献越多,专利被诉讼的可能性越大。
Financial industry is playing growing vital role in economy development. Since the financial products are always related to business method which involved mental activities and rules, patents played a limited role for nearly the entire history of financial products and services. The development of computer and network technology eliminate the obstacles of patentability for business method gradually. The appearance of business method patents provides a good approach for the protection of financial products and strengthens the competitive advantage of financial enterprises, which increased the market and innovation competition greatly in financial industry.
Based on the theories of sustainable competitive advantage of resource-based view of the firm, patent strategy and business method patent, the research focus is now directed toward patent strategy in financial industry, which include the framework of patent strategy in financial industry, the patent portfolio strategy for financial business methods, motives to patent and patent litigation strategy. Again, the study combines the methods of normative research, comparative research and empirical research. The main conclusions are as follows.
The analysis framework for patent strategy in financial firms comprises patent monitoring, patent acquisition and patent exploitation, which will be affected by the legal system of business method patents and business environment in financial industry.
Regarding the legal environment of business method patents, the standards in the US are lenient compared with those of Europe. In addition, the technical requirement is the main character of legal system of business method patent in Europe. As to China, SIPO has followed EPO to a great extent and the criteria are even stricter than those of Europe. With the legal background, the applications and awards at the USPTO are the most and financial players in the US are implementing patent strategy activly.
In light of the analysis of patent information, the paper argues non-financial institutes are filing financial patent actively, which will bring big threats to financial players. The number of patents hold by individuals and small enterprises is much more than that of other industries. Financial innovation is mainly dominated by financial institutes rather than non-financial institutes in spite of large numbers applications filed by non-financial institutes. There has been a high ratio of forward citation for financial basic patents, which shows the core technologies in this industry are concentrative. To sum up, patent portfolio has become a crucial strategy in financial players.
With regard to the motives to patent in financial industry, besides defensive strategy, offensive strategy and transactional strategy, a new patent strategy named patent troll is increasing popular. The new patent strategy of "being infringed" deliberately in financial industry might baffle technical innovation and increase the phenomena of patent thickets. There is some evidence that patents in this sector are relatively more prone to litigation than patents in general. The research indicates licensing, cross-licensing and negotiation material might be the main motive to patents in financial industry which is related to complex technical industries involving computer software.
The value and disclosure of patent has a positive and significant effect in probability of litigation. Therein to, the effect of forward citation and claims is much more important than that of patent family and patented prior art, rather than academic prior art has a more significant impact. Furthermore, the disclosure of patent has a different effect in probability of litigation with different patent value. With a lower patent value, increasing in disclosure will lead to increased likelihood of litigation.
本文在国内外相关文献研究的基础上,综合运用基于资源基础观的企业持续竞争优势理论、专利战略理论和商业方法专利理论,采用规范研究、比较研究和实证研究相结合的方法,对商业方法专利法律制度框架及其对金融企业专利行为的影响、金融商业方法专利组合策略、金融企业专利动机及其专利诉讼策略等问题进行了全面而深入地研究,得出了具有一定理论价值和实践价值的观点和结论。
本文首先基于专利战略理论,建立了金融企业专利策略运用的分析框架。本文把金融企业专利策略运用看作是一个大的系统,包括企业内部系统和外部系统。从企业内部来看,金融企业专利策略的运用主要包括专利监控、专利获取和专利实施等相互密切联系的三个领域。从外部系统来看,金融企业专利策略的运用在很大程度上要受到商业方法专利法律制度和金融行业贸易环境的影响。
商业方法专利法律制度问题是金融企业专利策略运用的法律基础。论文对美国、欧盟和我国的商业方法专利制度框架和审查实践及其对金融企业专利行为的影响进行了比较研究。美国对于商业方法专利的授权标准最为宽松,而欧盟关于商业方法专利的“技术性”要求是其法律制度的最主要特征。我国商业方法专利法律制度在很大程度上借鉴了欧盟的标准,并且比欧盟更为严格。商业方法专利法律制度对金融企业的专利行为产生重大影响。在此法律框架下,美国金融领域商业方法专利申请和授权量最多,金融企业的专利策略运用也更为积极。
基于专利组合理论,通过专利信息分析得出,非金融机构在金融领域进行战略布局,抢占竞争优势,非金融机构的专利布局构成了对金融机构的主要威胁;私人和小企业持有金融商业方法专利的数量要高于其它行业;金融商业方法基础专利集中度很强;尽管非金融机构在金融领域进行专利布局,但金融机构在金融创新中仍占据优势。金融企业已经纷纷通过构建专利组合策略应对竞争。
金融企业的专利获取动机包括防御性战略、进攻性战略以及交易战略。此外,一种新的金融专利战略模式“专利钓饵”战略在金融行业的运用越来越普遍。这种新的故意“被侵权”金融专利战略模式可能对技术创新产生阻碍作用,并且加剧了“专利丛林”现象。与其它行业相比,金融企业可能遭受更多专利诉讼的影响。在金融专利诉讼中,金融企业通常不是原告,而是被告。该研究表明:在金融行业等与计算机软件有关的复杂性技术行业,企业申请专利的主要目的和动机是用于许可、交叉许可以及把专利作为提高谈判地位的筹码。
商业方法专利价值和专利公开程度对于金融专利诉讼行为有显著的影响。价值越大的专利,诉讼的可能性越大。公开越多的专利,诉讼的可能性也越大。在专利价值的影响因素中,专利被引证量以及专利权利要求量对于专利诉讼行为的影响要高于专利家族的影响。而在专利公开的专利文献引证和非专利文献引证两个影响因素中,引证的专利文献对于金融商业方法专利诉讼行为的影响要大于非专利文献。进一步研究发现,在专利质量不同时,专利公开对于诉讼行为的影响存在差异。当专利质量较低时,该专利引证的专利技术文献越多,专利被诉讼的可能性越大。
Financial industry is playing growing vital role in economy development. Since the financial products are always related to business method which involved mental activities and rules, patents played a limited role for nearly the entire history of financial products and services. The development of computer and network technology eliminate the obstacles of patentability for business method gradually. The appearance of business method patents provides a good approach for the protection of financial products and strengthens the competitive advantage of financial enterprises, which increased the market and innovation competition greatly in financial industry.
Based on the theories of sustainable competitive advantage of resource-based view of the firm, patent strategy and business method patent, the research focus is now directed toward patent strategy in financial industry, which include the framework of patent strategy in financial industry, the patent portfolio strategy for financial business methods, motives to patent and patent litigation strategy. Again, the study combines the methods of normative research, comparative research and empirical research. The main conclusions are as follows.
The analysis framework for patent strategy in financial firms comprises patent monitoring, patent acquisition and patent exploitation, which will be affected by the legal system of business method patents and business environment in financial industry.
Regarding the legal environment of business method patents, the standards in the US are lenient compared with those of Europe. In addition, the technical requirement is the main character of legal system of business method patent in Europe. As to China, SIPO has followed EPO to a great extent and the criteria are even stricter than those of Europe. With the legal background, the applications and awards at the USPTO are the most and financial players in the US are implementing patent strategy activly.
In light of the analysis of patent information, the paper argues non-financial institutes are filing financial patent actively, which will bring big threats to financial players. The number of patents hold by individuals and small enterprises is much more than that of other industries. Financial innovation is mainly dominated by financial institutes rather than non-financial institutes in spite of large numbers applications filed by non-financial institutes. There has been a high ratio of forward citation for financial basic patents, which shows the core technologies in this industry are concentrative. To sum up, patent portfolio has become a crucial strategy in financial players.
With regard to the motives to patent in financial industry, besides defensive strategy, offensive strategy and transactional strategy, a new patent strategy named patent troll is increasing popular. The new patent strategy of "being infringed" deliberately in financial industry might baffle technical innovation and increase the phenomena of patent thickets. There is some evidence that patents in this sector are relatively more prone to litigation than patents in general. The research indicates licensing, cross-licensing and negotiation material might be the main motive to patents in financial industry which is related to complex technical industries involving computer software.
The value and disclosure of patent has a positive and significant effect in probability of litigation. Therein to, the effect of forward citation and claims is much more important than that of patent family and patented prior art, rather than academic prior art has a more significant impact. Furthermore, the disclosure of patent has a different effect in probability of litigation with different patent value. With a lower patent value, increasing in disclosure will lead to increased likelihood of litigation.
引文
1 State Street Bank& Trust Co.v.Signature Financial Group,149 F.3d,1368(Fed.Cir.1998).
1 “商业模式专利”在日本文献中更多被使用。
2 http://ecommerce.wipo.int/primer/index.html
3 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/def/705.htm
4 Likhovski,M.The first mover monopoly.Oxford Intellectual Property Research Center,St Peter's College,Oxford University.www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk.
1 《商业方法相关发明专利申请的审查规则(试行)》并没有对公众公开发布,而只是作为审查员审查商业方法专利时的内部参考。
[1] Aaker, D. A. Managing assets and skills: the key to sustainable competitive. California Management Review. 1989,18(1): 91-106.
[2] Alcorn, L.E. Pursuing business method patents in the U.S. patent and trademark office. Computer and Internet Law. 2003. 27: 30-37.
[3] Allison, J. R. & Tiller, E. H. Internet business method patents. In W.M. Cohen & S.A.Merrill (Eds), Patents in the knowledge-based economy. Washington, D.C.National Academies Press. 2003: 259-284.
[4] Allison, J. R. & Tiller, E. H. The business method patent myth. Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 2003,18:5-27.
[5] Allison, J.R. & Lemley, M.A.Who's patenting what? An empirical exploration of patent prosecution. Vanderbilt Law Review. 2000. 53(6): 2099-2174.
[6] Arora, A. & Fosfuri, A. Licensing the market for technology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2003, 52(2):277-295.
[7] Arora, A. Patenting, licensing and market structure in the chemical industry.Research Policy. 1997, 26(4/5): 391-403.
[8] Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. & Gambardella, A. Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Industrial and Corporate Change: 2001: 2(10).419-451.
[9] Arundel, A. & Patel, P. Strategic patenting: background report for the trend chart policy benchmarking workshop. New Trends in IPR Policy.2003.
[10] Arundel, A., Paal, G. & Soete, L. Innovation strategies of Europe's largest industrial firms. Results of the PACE survey for information sources, public research, protection of innovations and government programmers. Final Report,European Commission, Brussels, GD XIII.1995.
[11] Bader M. Extending legal protection strategies to the service innovations area: review and analysis. World Patent Information .2007, 29: 122-135.
[12] Bader, M. Managing intellectual property in the financial services industry sector:learning from Swiss Re. Working Paper. www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation.2007.
[13] Bagby, J.W. Business method patent proliferation: Convergence of transactional analytics and technical scientifics. Business Law. 2000,56:423-458.
[14] Bagley, M. A. Internet business model patents: obvious by analogy. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review. 2001, 7: 253-288.
[15] Barney, J. B. Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy.Management Science .1986(32): 1231-1241.
[16] Barney, J. B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management. 1991,17:99-120.
[17] Basberg, B.L. Patents and the measurement of technological change: a survey of the literature. Research Policy. 1987(16): 131-141.
[18] Bekkers, R., Duysters, G. & Verspagen, B. Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: the case of GSM. Research Policy.2002,31:1141-1161.
[19] Bender, D. & Barkume, A.R. Patents for software-related inventions. Software Law Journal. 1992,5: 279-298.
[20] Beresford, K. European patents for software, e-commerce and business model inventions. World Patent Information. 2001, 23(3): 253-263.
[21] Beresford, K. Patenting software under the European Patent Convention. Sweet & Maxwell. 2000.
[22] Berman, B.M. (ed.) From ideas in assets, investing wisely in Intellectual Property.Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2002.
[23] Bessen, J. Patent thickets:strategic patenting of complex technology.Working Paper.http://www.researchoninnovation.org/thicket.pdf.2003.
[24] Biddinger, B. P. Limiting the business method patent: a comparison and proposed alignment of Europe, Japanese and United States Patent Law. Fordham Law Review. 2001,5: 2523-2554.
[25] Bills, S. Patent lawsuit involving Citi seen having big implications. American Banker. The financial services daily, July 27, 2005.
[26] Blasberg, S. Beware patent trolls. Risk Management, 2006 (4): 22-27.
[27] Blind, K. & Thumm, N. Interrelation between patenting and standardization strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications. Research Policy. 2004,33(10):1583-1598.
[28] Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R. & Schmoch, U. The patent upsurge in Germany: the outcome of a multi-motive game induced by large companies. Working Paper.www.schumpeter2004.uni-bocconi.it/dwload.php?download=download&id_pap=13 .2004.
[29] Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R. & Schmoch, U. Motives to patent: empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy. 2006, 35: 655-672.
[30] Boscaljon, B., Filbeck, G. & Smaby, T. Information content of business method patents. The Financial Review.2006,41:387-404.
[31] Brinbaum, J. The case for the U.S. patent and trademark office's adoption of an open-source "bounty" system for reviewing business method and software patents,in light of the patent infringement battles featuring the U.S. financial exchanges that have been waged in recent years. UCLA Journal of Law & Technology, 2006,2:53-73.
[32] Bronwyn, H. & Ziedonis, R. H. The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry 1979-1995. RAND Journal of economics, 2001, (32): 101-125.
[33] Bronwyn, H. Business method patent, innovation, and policy. Working Paper.http://www.nber.org/papers/w9717.2003.
[34] Chen, Y. & Wu, J. Unlocking the value of business model patents in e-commerce.The Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2005,18: 113-130.
[35] Chesbrough, H. The logic of open innovation: magaging intellectal property.California Management Review.2003, 3(45). 33-58.
[36] Chiappetta, V. Defining the proper scope of internet patents: if we don't know where we want to go, we're unlikely to get there. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review. 2001.7:289-361.
[37] Chiappetta, V. TRP-ping over business method patents. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 2004, 37: 181-201.
[38] Clemons, E.K. & Row, M.C. Sustaining IT advantage: the role of structural differences. MIS Quarterly, 1991,15(3): 275-292.
[39] Cohen, W.M., Goto, A., Natata, A., Nelson, R.R.& Walsh, J.P. R&D spillovers,patents and the incentives to innovation in Japan and the United States. Research Policy. 2002, 31:1349-1367.
[40]Conley,J.M.The international law of business method patents.Economic Review.2003,4(88):15-33.
[41]Corbett,R.IP strategies for start-up ecommerce companies in the post-dot-bomb era.2002.8:643-663.
[42]Coyne,K.P.Sustainable competitive advantage:What it is and what it isn't.Business Horizons.1986(1/2):54-61.
[43]Cremers,K.Determinants of Patent litigation in Germany,Work Paper.2004.http://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract_id=604467.
[44]Davis,J.& Harrison,S.Edison in the boardroom,how leading companies realize value from their intellectual assets.John Wiley & Sons,Inc 2001.
[45]Dehning,B.& Stratopoulos,T.Determinants of a sustainable competitive advantage due to an IT-enabled strategy.Journal of Strategic Information Systems.2003,12(1):7-28.
[46]Diallo,B.Historical perspectives on IP protection for software in selected countries worldwide.World Patent Information.2003.25:19-25.
[47]Dickinson,Q.E-Commerce and Business Method Patents:An Old Debate for a New Economy.Annual Tenzer Distinguished Lecture in Intellectual Property,Benjamin N.Cardozo School of Law,Jacob Burns Institute for Advanced Legal Studies,U.S.Dept.of State,International Information Programs.2000.
[48]Dimatteo,L The new "problem" of business method patents:the convergence of national patent laws and international internet transactions.Rutgers Computer &Technology Law Journal.2002,28:1-45.
[49]Dreyfuss,R.Are business method patents bad for business.Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal.2000,16:263-278.
[50]Dreyfuss,R.Examining State Street Bank:developments in Business Method Patenting.Computer und Recht International.2001.1:1-9.
[51]Drohos,P.Review of O.Granstrand:the economics and management of intellectual property,Information Economics and Policy.2001,13:107-111.
[52]Dutcher,D.T.Patents on methods of doing business.Denver University Law Review.2001,79:173-198.
[53]Eisenmann,T.R.Interact business models.McGraw-Hill,New York,NY.2002.
[54] Ernst H. Patenting strategies in the German mechanical engineering industry and their relationship to firm performance.Technovation. 1995,15 (4): 225-240.
[55] Ernst, H. Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 2003, 25 (3): 233-242.
[56] Ernst, H. Patent portfolio for strategic R&D planning. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 1998,15(4):279-308.
[57] Ernst, H., Patent portfolios for strategic R&D planning. Engineer Technology Management. 1998,15:279-308.
[58] Fazzio, J. Financial innovation patents: the future of the futures markets, or old wine in new bottles. Computer Law Review and Technology Journal. 2005, 10:41-71.
[59] FhG. Patents in the service industries. Final Report. Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research: Karlsruhe.2003.
[60] Fine, G. To issue or not to issue: analysis of the business method patent controversy on the internet. BCL Review. 2001,42:1195-1213.
[61] Fink, M.E. Patenting business methods in Europe: what lies ahead? Indiana Law Journal.2004,79: 299-321.
[62] Frame, S. & White, L. Empirical studies of financial innovation: lots of talk, little action? 2002,5:171-180.
[63] Frankel, T. Cross-border securitization: without law, but not lawless. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law. 1998, 8: 255-282.
[64] Furutani, H. Patentability of business method inventions in Japan compared with the US and Europe. Working Paper. Presented at USPTO, November 3. 2003.
[65] Gallini, N. The economics of patents: lessons from recent U.S. patent reform.Journal of Economic Perspective. 2002,16(2):131-154.
[66] Graham, J. H. S. & D. C. Mowery. Intellectual property protection in the U.S. software industry. Berkeley, CA: Haas School, UC Berkeley. 2002.
[67] Granstrand, O. The economics and management of intellectual property: towards intellectual capitalism, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 1999.
[68] Grant, R.M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal. 1996,17:109-122.
[69]Grindley,P.& Teece D.Managing intellectual capital:licensing and crosslicensing in semiconductors and electronics.California Management Review.1997,39(2):8-41.
[70]Hall,B.& Macgarvie.The private value of software patents.Working Paper.http://www.nber.org/papers/.2006.
[71]Hall,B.& Ziedonis,R.M.The patent paradox revisited:an empirical study of patenting in the U.S.semiconductor industry,1979-1995.RAND Journal of Economics.2001,1(1):101-128.
[72]Hall,B.Business method patents,innovation and policy.Working Paper.http://papers.nber.org/papers/w9717.pdf.2003.
[73]Hall,B.,Graham,S.,Harhoff,D.& Mowery,D.Prospects for improving U.S.patent quality via post-grant opposition.Working Paper.http://www.nber.org/papers/w9731.2003.
[74]Hall,B.,Jaffe,A.& Trajtenberg,M.Market value and patent citations.RAND Journal of Economics.2005,36(1):16-38.
[75]Hall,R.A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage.Strategic Management Journal.1993,14:607-618.
[76]Hall,R.The strategic analysis of intangible resources.Strategic Management Journal.1992,(13):135-14.
[77]Harhoff,D.& Hall,B.Intellectual property strategy in the global cosmetics industry.Working Paper.http://elsa.berkeley.edu/～bhhall/IP%20Cosmetics NBER02.pdf.2002.
[78]Harhoff,D.& Reitzig,M.Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants-the case of biotechnology and pharmaceutical.International Journal of Industrial Organization.2004,22(4):433-480.
[79]Harhoff,D.,Scherer,F.M.& Vopel,K.Citations,family size,opposition and the value of patent rights.Research Policy.2003,32(8):1343-1363.
[80]Hart,R.,Holmes,P.& Reid,J.The economic impact of patentability of computer programs.Report to the European Commission,OECD.2000.
[81]Hasegawa,K.,Nagata,A.,Toyama,R.,Hirata,T.& Sasaki,T.Classification of the patent strategy of the Japanese firms by market environment and the characteristics of technology.Management of Engineering and Technology.2001,1:39.
[82]Heller,M.A.& Eisenberg,R.Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research.Science.1998(5):698-701.
[83]Heller,M.A.The tragedy of anticommons:property in the transition from Marx to Markets.Harvard Law Review.1999,11/12:621-688.
[84]Herrera,H.& Schroth,E.Profitable innovation without patent protection:the case of derivatives.Working Paper.http://search.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract_id=384822.2003.
[85]Hilty,R.M.& Geiger,C.Patenting software? A judicial and socio-economic analysis.International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law.2005,6:615-646.
[86]Hunt R.M.Intellectual property rights and standard setting in financial services:the case of the single European payments area.Working Paper.http://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm? abstract_id=1018483.2007.
[87]Hunt,R.M.Business method patents and U.S.financial services.Working Paper.http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/wps/2008/wp08-10.pdf.2008.
[88]Hunt,R.M.You can patent that? Are patents on computer programs and business methods good for the new economy.Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review,2001,1:5-15.
[89]Hunter S.D.Have business method patents gotten a bum rap? Some empirical evidence.Working Paper.MIT Sloan School of Management.2003.
[90]Jaffe,A.& Lerner,J.Innovation and its discontents,how our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress,and what to do about it.Princeton University Press.2004.
[91]Jaffe,A.& Lerner,J.Into the patent thicket.Princeton,NJ:Princeton University Press.2004.
[92] Kalpakidou, A. Business method patents. Should they survive in Europe? International Journal of Law and Information Technology.2005,13: 243—259.
[93] Kash, D.E. & Kingston, W. Patents in a world of complex technologies. Science and Public Policy. 2001,28(1):11-22.
[94] Kesan, J.P. Carrots and sticks to create a better patent system. Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 2002.17:764-797.
[95] Knight, H. Patent strategy for researcher and research managers. John Wiley&Sons, New York. 2001.
[96] Kopelman, A. Addressing questionable business method patents prior to issuance:a two-part proposal, Cardozo Law Review. 2006, 3: 2391—2436.
[97] Kortum, S & Lerner J. Stronger protection or technological revolution: what is behind the recent surge in patenting? Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy.1998.48 (6): 247-304.
[98] Krause, W. Sweeping the E-commerce patent minefield: the need for a workable business method exception. Seattle University Law Review. 2001,24: 79-105.
[99] Kretschmer, M. & Soetendorp, R. The strategic use of business method patents: a pilot study of out of court settlements. Journal of e-Business. 2001.2(1): 9-38.
[100] Kuester, J. & Thompson, L. E. Risks associated with restricting business method and e-commerce patents. Georgia State University Law Review. 2001,17:657-689.
[101] Kuester, J.R. Risks associated with restricting business method and e-commence patents. Georgia State University Law Review. 2001,17: 657-689.
[102] Kumar, P. & Turnbull, S.M. Patenting and licensing of financial innovations.Working Paper. SSRN. 2006.
[103] Lanjouw, J.O. & Schankerman, M.A. Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. The Rand Journal of Economics. 2001, 32 (1): 129-151.
[104] Lanjouw, J.O. & Schankerman, M.A. Enforcement of patent rights in the United States. In: Cohen, W.M. & Merrill, A. (eds.) Patents in the knowledge-based economy. The National Academic Press, Washington, D.C. 2003.
[105] Lee, N. Patent eligible subject matter reconfiguration and the emergence of proprietarian norms-the patent eligibility of business methods. IDEA-The Journa of Law and Technology.2005, 45: 321-359.
[106]Leo,R.The State Street Bank decision:the bad business of unlimited patent protection for methods of doing business.Fordham Intellectual Property Media &Entertainment Law Journal.2006,10:61-104.
[107]Lerner,J & Zhu,F.What is the impact of software patent shifts? Evidence from Lotus v.Borland.Working Paper.www.nber.org/papers.2005.
[108]Lerner,J.The new new financial thing:the origins of financial innovations.Working Paper.www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/FinInnov.pdf.2005.
[109]Lerner,J.Trolls on State Street?:the litigation of financial patents,1976-2005.Working Paper.http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/Trolls.pdf.2006.
[110]Lerner,J.Two-edged sword:the competitive implications of financial patents.Working Paper.www.frbatlanta.org/news/conferen/fm2003/lerner.doc.2003.
[111]Lerner,J.Where does State Street lead? A first look at finance patents,1971-2000.The Journal of Finance,2002(2),901-930.
[112]Likhovski,M.Fighting the patent wars.European Intellectual Property Review.2001,23(6):267-272.
[113]Liotard,I.Software and business method patents:case law evolution and market strategies.Working Paper.University of Pads Nord.http://www.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/Liotard.pdf.2005.
[114]Lunney,G.S.E-Obviousness.Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review.2001,7:363-422.
[115]Lytle,B.& Signore,P.Finance companies rush to patent business methods.Managing Intellectual Property.2004,136:1-6.
[116]Macdonald,S.& Lefang,B.Innovation and the patent attorney.Prometheus.1997,15:329-343.
[117]Mansfield,E.Patents and innovation:an empirical study.Management Science.1986,32:173-181.
[118]Martin,N.L.The strategic value of business method patents in information systems.Doctoral Dissertation.2006.
[119]Maskus,K.& Wong,E.Searching for economic balance in business method patents.Working Paper.http://law.wust1.edu/journal/8/p289Maskusbookpages.pdf.2001.
[120] McDonough, J. F. The myth of the patent troll: an alternative view of the function of patent dealers in an idea economy. Emory Law Journal. 2006,56:189-217.
[121] Mello, J.P. Legal update: technology licensing and patent trolls. Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law. 2006(12): 388-396.
[122] Merges, R. As many as six impossible patents before breakfast: Property rights for business concepts and patent system reform. Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 1999,14(2): 577-615.
[123] Merges, R. The uninvited guest: patents on wall street. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review. 2003, 88(4):1-14.
[124] Meurer, M. Business method patents and patent floods. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy. 2002, 8: 309-340.
[125] Miele, A. Patent strategy, the manager's guide to profiting from patent portfolios.John Wiley & Sons, Inc.2000.
[126] Mykytyn, M., Mykytyn, P., Bordoloi, B. McKinney V. & Bandyopadhyay K. The role of software patents in sustaining IT-enabled competitive advangate: a call for research. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 2002,11(1): 59-82.
[127] National Research Council. A Patent System for the 21st Century.The National Academies Press. Washington, D.C. 2004.
[128] Nerkar, A. Business method patents as real options: value and disclosure as drivers of litigation. Real Options in Strategic Management. Advances in Strategic Management.2007, 24: 247-274.
[129] Newman, J. The patentability of computer-related inventions in Europe. Europe Intellectual Property Review, 1997,12: 701-708.
[130] Ovans, A. Can you patent your business model? Harvard Business Review. 2000,78:16.
[131] Penrose, E.T. The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley, 1959.
[132] Peteraf, M.A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: Are source-based view.Strategic Management Journal, 1993,14:179-191.
[133] Petersson, J. Business method patent. Master Thesis. University of Gothenburg,2002.
[134] Pitkethly, R.H. Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities. Research Policy. 2001, 30(3):425-442.
[135] Porter, M. Strategy and the internet. Harvard Business Review. 2003,3: 63-68.
[136] Priest, G.L. & Klein, B. The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies. 1984, XIII: 1-55.
[137] Quinn, E. R.The proliferation of electronic commerce: don't blame the PTO,Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal. 2002, 28:121-153.
[138] Rantanen, J. Slaying the troll: litigation as an effective strategy against patent threats. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal. 2006, 23:159-190.
[139] Reitzig, M. Improving patent valuations for management purposes-validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy. 2004,33:939-957.
[140] Reitzig, M. On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey—unrealistic damage awards and firms strategies of "being infringed". Joachim Henkel and Christopher Heath Research Policy. 2007, 36(1): 134-154.
[141] Reitzig, M. Strategic management of intellectual property. MIT Sloan Management Review. Spring 2004,35-40.
[142] Reitzig, M. What determines patent value? : Insight from the semiconductor industry. Research Policy. 2003,32:13-26.
[143] Reitzig, M. The private values of "thickets" and "fences": towards an updated picture of the use of patents across industries. Ecomonics of Innovation and New Technology. 2004,13(5):457-476.
[144] Rivette, K.G. & Kline, D. Discovering new value in intellectual property. Harvard Business Review. 2000, 78(l):54-66.
[145] Rivette, K.G. & Kline, D. Rembrandts in the attic: unlocking the hidden value of patents. Harvard Business School Press: Boston. 2000.
[146] Rober, M. H. Business method patents and U.S. financial services. Working Paper.http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/wps/2008/wp08-10.pdf.2008.
[147] Robert, L. S. Business method patent: a United State perspective. USPTO,September 2001.
[148] Roberts, B. Tale of two patent strategies. Electronic Business. 1999,10(25):79-84.
[149] Rumelt, R. P. Toward a strategic theory of the firm, competitive strategic management. R.B. Lamb. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall: 1984:556-570.
[150] Sakakibara, M., & Branstetter, L. Do stronger patents induce more innovation?Evidence from the 1988 Japanese Patent law reforms. Rand Journal of Economics.2001, 32: 77-100.
[151] Schaafsma, P. E. A gathering storm in the financial industry. Stanford Journal of Law, Business and Finance. 2004, 9:176-198.
[152] Schwartz, E. Patents and R&D as real options. Working Paper. http://www.NBER.org/papers. 2003.
[153] Shapiro, C. Navigating the patent thicker: cross- licenses, patent pool, and standard-setting. Working Paper. http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/Shapiro/thicket pdf. 2001.
[154] Smith, B. & Mann, S. Innovation and intellectual property protection in the software industry: an emerging role for patents? The University of Chicago Law Review. 2004.71(1): 241-264.
[155] Soininen, A. The software and business-method patent ecosystem: academic,political, legal and business developments in the U.S. and Europe. Doctoral Dissertation. 2005.
[156] Somaya, D. Patent strategy viewed through the lens of patent litigation. Doctoral Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. 2002.
[157] Somaya, D. & Teece, D. Combining patented inventions in multi-invention products. Transactional challenges and organizational choices. Working Paper.University of Maryland, University of California at Berkeley. 2001.
[158] Somaya, D. Theoretical perspective on patent strategy. Working Paper. University of Maryland. 2003.
[159] Spindler, G. The European legal famework for software patents. Paper presented at the EPIP conference on New Challenges to the Patent System, EPO, Munich, Germany. April 24/25, 2003.
[160] Stanford, C. Business method patents and financial services. Economic Review—Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Fourth Quarter. 2003, 88(4): v-vii.
[161] Straus, J. Is there a global warming of patens? The Journal of World Intellectual Property. 2008,1: 58-62.
[162] Straus, J. Patent litigation in Europe-A glimmer of hope? Present status and future perspective. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy. 2000, 2: 403-428.
[163] Straus, J. The impact of the new world order on economic development: the role of the intellectual property rights systems. The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2006, 6:1-16.
[164] Taffet, R. & Hanish, M. Business method patents: The uproar continues- but should it? International Legal Strategy. 2001.10(2): 23-37.
[165] Taketa, J. Notes: The future of business method software patents in the international intellectual property system. Southern California Law Review 2002.75: 943-982.
[166] Tang, P. & Adams, J. Patent protection for computer software programs. Report for Directorate Generate Enterprise, European Commission.2001.
[167] Tang, P. & Pare, D. Gathering the foam? A critical review of business method patents. International Review of Law, Computers, and Technology. 2003, 17(2):127-162.
[168] Teece, D. Managing intellectual capital. Organizational, strategic and policy dimensions.Oxford University Press.2000.
[169] Thumm, N. Management of intellectual property rights in European biotechnology firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2001,67: 259-272.
[170] Thumm, N. Patenting as a protection tool: a reassessment. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Sevilla. IPTS report. 2000, 43, 26-31.
[171] Thumm, N. Strategic patenting in biotechnology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2004,16(4):529-538.
[172] Tufano, P. Financial innovation and first mover advantages. Journal of Financial Economics. 1989.25: 213-240.
[173] Wagner, S. Business method patents in Europe and their strategic use - evidence from franking device manufacturers. SFB Discussion Paper No. 386. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=599743.2004.
[174] Wells, M.G. Internet business method patent policy. Virginia Law Review. 2001,87: 729-780.
[175]Wernerfelt,B.Are source-based view of the firm.Strategic Management Journal.1984,5:171-180.
[176]Wiese,W.D.Death of a myth:the patenting of interact business models after State Street Bank,Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review.2000,4:17-48.
[177]Zhang,Yurong & Yu,Xiang.The patent protection for business method inventions in China.European Intellectual Property Review.2008.10:412-419.
[178]Ziedonis,R.H.Don't fence me in:fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms.Management Science.2004,50(6):804-820.
[179]戴志敏,陈立毅.美国金融类商业方法专利及其启示,外国经济与管理,2003.11,29-33.
[180]冯晓青.企业技术创新与专利战略之探讨.信息技术与标准化.2005.8,34—36.
[181]冯晓青.企业知识产权战略.知识产权出版社.2005.
[182]高山行,贺小雨,胡海平.商业方法专利侵权判定原则研究.情报杂志.2006.7:71-73.
[183]郭斯伦.电子商务商业方法专利的创造性判断标准分析.云南大学学报(法学版).2006.3:36-41.
[184]李玉剑,宣国良.专利联盟:战略联盟研究的新领域,中国工业经济.2004,2:48-54.
[185]刘林青,谭力文,赵浩兴.专利丛林、专利组合和专利联盟——从专利战略到专利群战略.研究与发展管理.2006.4:83-89.
[186]倪颂军,商业银行的金融专利保护问题研究.硕士论文.2005.
[187]戚昌文,邵洋.市场竞争与专利战略.华中理工大学出版社.1995.
[188]任声策,宣国良.企业专利诉讼行为及其影响机制分析.知识产权.2006.241-46.
[189]夏志华,基于金融创新的金融专利研究.硕士论文.2004.
[190]杨雨,朱东华,任志军,林春燕.银行科技创新的专利策略研究.科学学与科学技术管理,2006,4:77-81.
[191]雍海英,李学丽,蒋飞.中资银行商业方法专利战略现状及分析.商业研究.2006.5:28-31.
[192]余翔,张玉蓉.金融专利新战略“专利钓饵”及其防范.研究与发展管理.2008,3:100-105.
[193]余翔,张玉蓉.美国金融业专利战略研究及启示.国际金融研究.2008,3:20-26.
[194]岳贤平,李廉水,顾海英.专利交叉许可的微观机理研究.情报理论与实践.2007,3:306-310.
[195]张铭,商业方法专利在欧洲的保护,http://www.paper.edu.cn/en/downloadpaper.php?serial_number=2OO602-307&type =1
[196]张平.论商业方法软件专利保护的创造性标准——美、日、欧三方专利审查之比较.知识产权,2003.1:25-29.
[197]张平.商业方法软件专利保护:美国的实践及其启示.法商研究.2005.4:138-145.
[198]张玉蓉,余翔.美国金融业商业方法专利实证分析及其对我国的启示.知识产权.2008.2:70-78.
[199]张玉蓉,余翔.我国核电行业专利战略研究.电子知识产权.2006.12:22-27.
[200]章景.银行业金融商业方法专利研究.硕士论文.2005.
1 “商业模式专利”在日本文献中更多被使用。
2 http://ecommerce.wipo.int/primer/index.html
3 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/def/705.htm
4 Likhovski,M.The first mover monopoly.Oxford Intellectual Property Research Center,St Peter's College,Oxford University.www.oiprc.ox.ac.uk.
1 《商业方法相关发明专利申请的审查规则(试行)》并没有对公众公开发布,而只是作为审查员审查商业方法专利时的内部参考。
[1] Aaker, D. A. Managing assets and skills: the key to sustainable competitive. California Management Review. 1989,18(1): 91-106.
[2] Alcorn, L.E. Pursuing business method patents in the U.S. patent and trademark office. Computer and Internet Law. 2003. 27: 30-37.
[3] Allison, J. R. & Tiller, E. H. Internet business method patents. In W.M. Cohen & S.A.Merrill (Eds), Patents in the knowledge-based economy. Washington, D.C.National Academies Press. 2003: 259-284.
[4] Allison, J. R. & Tiller, E. H. The business method patent myth. Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 2003,18:5-27.
[5] Allison, J.R. & Lemley, M.A.Who's patenting what? An empirical exploration of patent prosecution. Vanderbilt Law Review. 2000. 53(6): 2099-2174.
[6] Arora, A. & Fosfuri, A. Licensing the market for technology. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2003, 52(2):277-295.
[7] Arora, A. Patenting, licensing and market structure in the chemical industry.Research Policy. 1997, 26(4/5): 391-403.
[8] Arora, A., Fosfuri, A. & Gambardella, A. Markets for technology and their implications for corporate strategy. Industrial and Corporate Change: 2001: 2(10).419-451.
[9] Arundel, A. & Patel, P. Strategic patenting: background report for the trend chart policy benchmarking workshop. New Trends in IPR Policy.2003.
[10] Arundel, A., Paal, G. & Soete, L. Innovation strategies of Europe's largest industrial firms. Results of the PACE survey for information sources, public research, protection of innovations and government programmers. Final Report,European Commission, Brussels, GD XIII.1995.
[11] Bader M. Extending legal protection strategies to the service innovations area: review and analysis. World Patent Information .2007, 29: 122-135.
[12] Bader, M. Managing intellectual property in the financial services industry sector:learning from Swiss Re. Working Paper. www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation.2007.
[13] Bagby, J.W. Business method patent proliferation: Convergence of transactional analytics and technical scientifics. Business Law. 2000,56:423-458.
[14] Bagley, M. A. Internet business model patents: obvious by analogy. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review. 2001, 7: 253-288.
[15] Barney, J. B. Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy.Management Science .1986(32): 1231-1241.
[16] Barney, J. B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management. 1991,17:99-120.
[17] Basberg, B.L. Patents and the measurement of technological change: a survey of the literature. Research Policy. 1987(16): 131-141.
[18] Bekkers, R., Duysters, G. & Verspagen, B. Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: the case of GSM. Research Policy.2002,31:1141-1161.
[19] Bender, D. & Barkume, A.R. Patents for software-related inventions. Software Law Journal. 1992,5: 279-298.
[20] Beresford, K. European patents for software, e-commerce and business model inventions. World Patent Information. 2001, 23(3): 253-263.
[21] Beresford, K. Patenting software under the European Patent Convention. Sweet & Maxwell. 2000.
[22] Berman, B.M. (ed.) From ideas in assets, investing wisely in Intellectual Property.Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2002.
[23] Bessen, J. Patent thickets:strategic patenting of complex technology.Working Paper.http://www.researchoninnovation.org/thicket.pdf.2003.
[24] Biddinger, B. P. Limiting the business method patent: a comparison and proposed alignment of Europe, Japanese and United States Patent Law. Fordham Law Review. 2001,5: 2523-2554.
[25] Bills, S. Patent lawsuit involving Citi seen having big implications. American Banker. The financial services daily, July 27, 2005.
[26] Blasberg, S. Beware patent trolls. Risk Management, 2006 (4): 22-27.
[27] Blind, K. & Thumm, N. Interrelation between patenting and standardization strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications. Research Policy. 2004,33(10):1583-1598.
[28] Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R. & Schmoch, U. The patent upsurge in Germany: the outcome of a multi-motive game induced by large companies. Working Paper.www.schumpeter2004.uni-bocconi.it/dwload.php?download=download&id_pap=13 .2004.
[29] Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R. & Schmoch, U. Motives to patent: empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy. 2006, 35: 655-672.
[30] Boscaljon, B., Filbeck, G. & Smaby, T. Information content of business method patents. The Financial Review.2006,41:387-404.
[31] Brinbaum, J. The case for the U.S. patent and trademark office's adoption of an open-source "bounty" system for reviewing business method and software patents,in light of the patent infringement battles featuring the U.S. financial exchanges that have been waged in recent years. UCLA Journal of Law & Technology, 2006,2:53-73.
[32] Bronwyn, H. & Ziedonis, R. H. The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry 1979-1995. RAND Journal of economics, 2001, (32): 101-125.
[33] Bronwyn, H. Business method patent, innovation, and policy. Working Paper.http://www.nber.org/papers/w9717.2003.
[34] Chen, Y. & Wu, J. Unlocking the value of business model patents in e-commerce.The Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2005,18: 113-130.
[35] Chesbrough, H. The logic of open innovation: magaging intellectal property.California Management Review.2003, 3(45). 33-58.
[36] Chiappetta, V. Defining the proper scope of internet patents: if we don't know where we want to go, we're unlikely to get there. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review. 2001.7:289-361.
[37] Chiappetta, V. TRP-ping over business method patents. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 2004, 37: 181-201.
[38] Clemons, E.K. & Row, M.C. Sustaining IT advantage: the role of structural differences. MIS Quarterly, 1991,15(3): 275-292.
[39] Cohen, W.M., Goto, A., Natata, A., Nelson, R.R.& Walsh, J.P. R&D spillovers,patents and the incentives to innovation in Japan and the United States. Research Policy. 2002, 31:1349-1367.
[40]Conley,J.M.The international law of business method patents.Economic Review.2003,4(88):15-33.
[41]Corbett,R.IP strategies for start-up ecommerce companies in the post-dot-bomb era.2002.8:643-663.
[42]Coyne,K.P.Sustainable competitive advantage:What it is and what it isn't.Business Horizons.1986(1/2):54-61.
[43]Cremers,K.Determinants of Patent litigation in Germany,Work Paper.2004.http://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract_id=604467.
[44]Davis,J.& Harrison,S.Edison in the boardroom,how leading companies realize value from their intellectual assets.John Wiley & Sons,Inc 2001.
[45]Dehning,B.& Stratopoulos,T.Determinants of a sustainable competitive advantage due to an IT-enabled strategy.Journal of Strategic Information Systems.2003,12(1):7-28.
[46]Diallo,B.Historical perspectives on IP protection for software in selected countries worldwide.World Patent Information.2003.25:19-25.
[47]Dickinson,Q.E-Commerce and Business Method Patents:An Old Debate for a New Economy.Annual Tenzer Distinguished Lecture in Intellectual Property,Benjamin N.Cardozo School of Law,Jacob Burns Institute for Advanced Legal Studies,U.S.Dept.of State,International Information Programs.2000.
[48]Dimatteo,L The new "problem" of business method patents:the convergence of national patent laws and international internet transactions.Rutgers Computer &Technology Law Journal.2002,28:1-45.
[49]Dreyfuss,R.Are business method patents bad for business.Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal.2000,16:263-278.
[50]Dreyfuss,R.Examining State Street Bank:developments in Business Method Patenting.Computer und Recht International.2001.1:1-9.
[51]Drohos,P.Review of O.Granstrand:the economics and management of intellectual property,Information Economics and Policy.2001,13:107-111.
[52]Dutcher,D.T.Patents on methods of doing business.Denver University Law Review.2001,79:173-198.
[53]Eisenmann,T.R.Interact business models.McGraw-Hill,New York,NY.2002.
[54] Ernst H. Patenting strategies in the German mechanical engineering industry and their relationship to firm performance.Technovation. 1995,15 (4): 225-240.
[55] Ernst, H. Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Information, 2003, 25 (3): 233-242.
[56] Ernst, H. Patent portfolio for strategic R&D planning. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 1998,15(4):279-308.
[57] Ernst, H., Patent portfolios for strategic R&D planning. Engineer Technology Management. 1998,15:279-308.
[58] Fazzio, J. Financial innovation patents: the future of the futures markets, or old wine in new bottles. Computer Law Review and Technology Journal. 2005, 10:41-71.
[59] FhG. Patents in the service industries. Final Report. Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research: Karlsruhe.2003.
[60] Fine, G. To issue or not to issue: analysis of the business method patent controversy on the internet. BCL Review. 2001,42:1195-1213.
[61] Fink, M.E. Patenting business methods in Europe: what lies ahead? Indiana Law Journal.2004,79: 299-321.
[62] Frame, S. & White, L. Empirical studies of financial innovation: lots of talk, little action? 2002,5:171-180.
[63] Frankel, T. Cross-border securitization: without law, but not lawless. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law. 1998, 8: 255-282.
[64] Furutani, H. Patentability of business method inventions in Japan compared with the US and Europe. Working Paper. Presented at USPTO, November 3. 2003.
[65] Gallini, N. The economics of patents: lessons from recent U.S. patent reform.Journal of Economic Perspective. 2002,16(2):131-154.
[66] Graham, J. H. S. & D. C. Mowery. Intellectual property protection in the U.S. software industry. Berkeley, CA: Haas School, UC Berkeley. 2002.
[67] Granstrand, O. The economics and management of intellectual property: towards intellectual capitalism, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 1999.
[68] Grant, R.M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal. 1996,17:109-122.
[69]Grindley,P.& Teece D.Managing intellectual capital:licensing and crosslicensing in semiconductors and electronics.California Management Review.1997,39(2):8-41.
[70]Hall,B.& Macgarvie.The private value of software patents.Working Paper.http://www.nber.org/papers/.2006.
[71]Hall,B.& Ziedonis,R.M.The patent paradox revisited:an empirical study of patenting in the U.S.semiconductor industry,1979-1995.RAND Journal of Economics.2001,1(1):101-128.
[72]Hall,B.Business method patents,innovation and policy.Working Paper.http://papers.nber.org/papers/w9717.pdf.2003.
[73]Hall,B.,Graham,S.,Harhoff,D.& Mowery,D.Prospects for improving U.S.patent quality via post-grant opposition.Working Paper.http://www.nber.org/papers/w9731.2003.
[74]Hall,B.,Jaffe,A.& Trajtenberg,M.Market value and patent citations.RAND Journal of Economics.2005,36(1):16-38.
[75]Hall,R.A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage.Strategic Management Journal.1993,14:607-618.
[76]Hall,R.The strategic analysis of intangible resources.Strategic Management Journal.1992,(13):135-14.
[77]Harhoff,D.& Hall,B.Intellectual property strategy in the global cosmetics industry.Working Paper.http://elsa.berkeley.edu/～bhhall/IP%20Cosmetics NBER02.pdf.2002.
[78]Harhoff,D.& Reitzig,M.Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants-the case of biotechnology and pharmaceutical.International Journal of Industrial Organization.2004,22(4):433-480.
[79]Harhoff,D.,Scherer,F.M.& Vopel,K.Citations,family size,opposition and the value of patent rights.Research Policy.2003,32(8):1343-1363.
[80]Hart,R.,Holmes,P.& Reid,J.The economic impact of patentability of computer programs.Report to the European Commission,OECD.2000.
[81]Hasegawa,K.,Nagata,A.,Toyama,R.,Hirata,T.& Sasaki,T.Classification of the patent strategy of the Japanese firms by market environment and the characteristics of technology.Management of Engineering and Technology.2001,1:39.
[82]Heller,M.A.& Eisenberg,R.Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research.Science.1998(5):698-701.
[83]Heller,M.A.The tragedy of anticommons:property in the transition from Marx to Markets.Harvard Law Review.1999,11/12:621-688.
[84]Herrera,H.& Schroth,E.Profitable innovation without patent protection:the case of derivatives.Working Paper.http://search.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm?abstract_id=384822.2003.
[85]Hilty,R.M.& Geiger,C.Patenting software? A judicial and socio-economic analysis.International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law.2005,6:615-646.
[86]Hunt R.M.Intellectual property rights and standard setting in financial services:the case of the single European payments area.Working Paper.http://papers.ssrn.com/so13/papers.cfm? abstract_id=1018483.2007.
[87]Hunt,R.M.Business method patents and U.S.financial services.Working Paper.http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/wps/2008/wp08-10.pdf.2008.
[88]Hunt,R.M.You can patent that? Are patents on computer programs and business methods good for the new economy.Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review,2001,1:5-15.
[89]Hunter S.D.Have business method patents gotten a bum rap? Some empirical evidence.Working Paper.MIT Sloan School of Management.2003.
[90]Jaffe,A.& Lerner,J.Innovation and its discontents,how our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress,and what to do about it.Princeton University Press.2004.
[91]Jaffe,A.& Lerner,J.Into the patent thicket.Princeton,NJ:Princeton University Press.2004.
[92] Kalpakidou, A. Business method patents. Should they survive in Europe? International Journal of Law and Information Technology.2005,13: 243—259.
[93] Kash, D.E. & Kingston, W. Patents in a world of complex technologies. Science and Public Policy. 2001,28(1):11-22.
[94] Kesan, J.P. Carrots and sticks to create a better patent system. Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 2002.17:764-797.
[95] Knight, H. Patent strategy for researcher and research managers. John Wiley&Sons, New York. 2001.
[96] Kopelman, A. Addressing questionable business method patents prior to issuance:a two-part proposal, Cardozo Law Review. 2006, 3: 2391—2436.
[97] Kortum, S & Lerner J. Stronger protection or technological revolution: what is behind the recent surge in patenting? Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy.1998.48 (6): 247-304.
[98] Krause, W. Sweeping the E-commerce patent minefield: the need for a workable business method exception. Seattle University Law Review. 2001,24: 79-105.
[99] Kretschmer, M. & Soetendorp, R. The strategic use of business method patents: a pilot study of out of court settlements. Journal of e-Business. 2001.2(1): 9-38.
[100] Kuester, J. & Thompson, L. E. Risks associated with restricting business method and e-commerce patents. Georgia State University Law Review. 2001,17:657-689.
[101] Kuester, J.R. Risks associated with restricting business method and e-commence patents. Georgia State University Law Review. 2001,17: 657-689.
[102] Kumar, P. & Turnbull, S.M. Patenting and licensing of financial innovations.Working Paper. SSRN. 2006.
[103] Lanjouw, J.O. & Schankerman, M.A. Characteristics of patent litigation: a window on competition. The Rand Journal of Economics. 2001, 32 (1): 129-151.
[104] Lanjouw, J.O. & Schankerman, M.A. Enforcement of patent rights in the United States. In: Cohen, W.M. & Merrill, A. (eds.) Patents in the knowledge-based economy. The National Academic Press, Washington, D.C. 2003.
[105] Lee, N. Patent eligible subject matter reconfiguration and the emergence of proprietarian norms-the patent eligibility of business methods. IDEA-The Journa of Law and Technology.2005, 45: 321-359.
[106]Leo,R.The State Street Bank decision:the bad business of unlimited patent protection for methods of doing business.Fordham Intellectual Property Media &Entertainment Law Journal.2006,10:61-104.
[107]Lerner,J & Zhu,F.What is the impact of software patent shifts? Evidence from Lotus v.Borland.Working Paper.www.nber.org/papers.2005.
[108]Lerner,J.The new new financial thing:the origins of financial innovations.Working Paper.www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/FinInnov.pdf.2005.
[109]Lerner,J.Trolls on State Street?:the litigation of financial patents,1976-2005.Working Paper.http://www.people.hbs.edu/jlerner/Trolls.pdf.2006.
[110]Lerner,J.Two-edged sword:the competitive implications of financial patents.Working Paper.www.frbatlanta.org/news/conferen/fm2003/lerner.doc.2003.
[111]Lerner,J.Where does State Street lead? A first look at finance patents,1971-2000.The Journal of Finance,2002(2),901-930.
[112]Likhovski,M.Fighting the patent wars.European Intellectual Property Review.2001,23(6):267-272.
[113]Liotard,I.Software and business method patents:case law evolution and market strategies.Working Paper.University of Pads Nord.http://www.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/Liotard.pdf.2005.
[114]Lunney,G.S.E-Obviousness.Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review.2001,7:363-422.
[115]Lytle,B.& Signore,P.Finance companies rush to patent business methods.Managing Intellectual Property.2004,136:1-6.
[116]Macdonald,S.& Lefang,B.Innovation and the patent attorney.Prometheus.1997,15:329-343.
[117]Mansfield,E.Patents and innovation:an empirical study.Management Science.1986,32:173-181.
[118]Martin,N.L.The strategic value of business method patents in information systems.Doctoral Dissertation.2006.
[119]Maskus,K.& Wong,E.Searching for economic balance in business method patents.Working Paper.http://law.wust1.edu/journal/8/p289Maskusbookpages.pdf.2001.
[120] McDonough, J. F. The myth of the patent troll: an alternative view of the function of patent dealers in an idea economy. Emory Law Journal. 2006,56:189-217.
[121] Mello, J.P. Legal update: technology licensing and patent trolls. Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law. 2006(12): 388-396.
[122] Merges, R. As many as six impossible patents before breakfast: Property rights for business concepts and patent system reform. Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 1999,14(2): 577-615.
[123] Merges, R. The uninvited guest: patents on wall street. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review. 2003, 88(4):1-14.
[124] Meurer, M. Business method patents and patent floods. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy. 2002, 8: 309-340.
[125] Miele, A. Patent strategy, the manager's guide to profiting from patent portfolios.John Wiley & Sons, Inc.2000.
[126] Mykytyn, M., Mykytyn, P., Bordoloi, B. McKinney V. & Bandyopadhyay K. The role of software patents in sustaining IT-enabled competitive advangate: a call for research. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 2002,11(1): 59-82.
[127] National Research Council. A Patent System for the 21st Century.The National Academies Press. Washington, D.C. 2004.
[128] Nerkar, A. Business method patents as real options: value and disclosure as drivers of litigation. Real Options in Strategic Management. Advances in Strategic Management.2007, 24: 247-274.
[129] Newman, J. The patentability of computer-related inventions in Europe. Europe Intellectual Property Review, 1997,12: 701-708.
[130] Ovans, A. Can you patent your business model? Harvard Business Review. 2000,78:16.
[131] Penrose, E.T. The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley, 1959.
[132] Peteraf, M.A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: Are source-based view.Strategic Management Journal, 1993,14:179-191.
[133] Petersson, J. Business method patent. Master Thesis. University of Gothenburg,2002.
[134] Pitkethly, R.H. Intellectual property strategy in Japanese and UK companies: patent licensing decisions and learning opportunities. Research Policy. 2001, 30(3):425-442.
[135] Porter, M. Strategy and the internet. Harvard Business Review. 2003,3: 63-68.
[136] Priest, G.L. & Klein, B. The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies. 1984, XIII: 1-55.
[137] Quinn, E. R.The proliferation of electronic commerce: don't blame the PTO,Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal. 2002, 28:121-153.
[138] Rantanen, J. Slaying the troll: litigation as an effective strategy against patent threats. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal. 2006, 23:159-190.
[139] Reitzig, M. Improving patent valuations for management purposes-validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy. 2004,33:939-957.
[140] Reitzig, M. On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey—unrealistic damage awards and firms strategies of "being infringed". Joachim Henkel and Christopher Heath Research Policy. 2007, 36(1): 134-154.
[141] Reitzig, M. Strategic management of intellectual property. MIT Sloan Management Review. Spring 2004,35-40.
[142] Reitzig, M. What determines patent value? : Insight from the semiconductor industry. Research Policy. 2003,32:13-26.
[143] Reitzig, M. The private values of "thickets" and "fences": towards an updated picture of the use of patents across industries. Ecomonics of Innovation and New Technology. 2004,13(5):457-476.
[144] Rivette, K.G. & Kline, D. Discovering new value in intellectual property. Harvard Business Review. 2000, 78(l):54-66.
[145] Rivette, K.G. & Kline, D. Rembrandts in the attic: unlocking the hidden value of patents. Harvard Business School Press: Boston. 2000.
[146] Rober, M. H. Business method patents and U.S. financial services. Working Paper.http://www.philadelphiafed.org/files/wps/2008/wp08-10.pdf.2008.
[147] Robert, L. S. Business method patent: a United State perspective. USPTO,September 2001.
[148] Roberts, B. Tale of two patent strategies. Electronic Business. 1999,10(25):79-84.
[149] Rumelt, R. P. Toward a strategic theory of the firm, competitive strategic management. R.B. Lamb. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall: 1984:556-570.
[150] Sakakibara, M., & Branstetter, L. Do stronger patents induce more innovation?Evidence from the 1988 Japanese Patent law reforms. Rand Journal of Economics.2001, 32: 77-100.
[151] Schaafsma, P. E. A gathering storm in the financial industry. Stanford Journal of Law, Business and Finance. 2004, 9:176-198.
[152] Schwartz, E. Patents and R&D as real options. Working Paper. http://www.NBER.org/papers. 2003.
[153] Shapiro, C. Navigating the patent thicker: cross- licenses, patent pool, and standard-setting. Working Paper. http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/Shapiro/thicket pdf. 2001.
[154] Smith, B. & Mann, S. Innovation and intellectual property protection in the software industry: an emerging role for patents? The University of Chicago Law Review. 2004.71(1): 241-264.
[155] Soininen, A. The software and business-method patent ecosystem: academic,political, legal and business developments in the U.S. and Europe. Doctoral Dissertation. 2005.
[156] Somaya, D. Patent strategy viewed through the lens of patent litigation. Doctoral Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. 2002.
[157] Somaya, D. & Teece, D. Combining patented inventions in multi-invention products. Transactional challenges and organizational choices. Working Paper.University of Maryland, University of California at Berkeley. 2001.
[158] Somaya, D. Theoretical perspective on patent strategy. Working Paper. University of Maryland. 2003.
[159] Spindler, G. The European legal famework for software patents. Paper presented at the EPIP conference on New Challenges to the Patent System, EPO, Munich, Germany. April 24/25, 2003.
[160] Stanford, C. Business method patents and financial services. Economic Review—Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Fourth Quarter. 2003, 88(4): v-vii.
[161] Straus, J. Is there a global warming of patens? The Journal of World Intellectual Property. 2008,1: 58-62.
[162] Straus, J. Patent litigation in Europe-A glimmer of hope? Present status and future perspective. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy. 2000, 2: 403-428.
[163] Straus, J. The impact of the new world order on economic development: the role of the intellectual property rights systems. The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 2006, 6:1-16.
[164] Taffet, R. & Hanish, M. Business method patents: The uproar continues- but should it? International Legal Strategy. 2001.10(2): 23-37.
[165] Taketa, J. Notes: The future of business method software patents in the international intellectual property system. Southern California Law Review 2002.75: 943-982.
[166] Tang, P. & Adams, J. Patent protection for computer software programs. Report for Directorate Generate Enterprise, European Commission.2001.
[167] Tang, P. & Pare, D. Gathering the foam? A critical review of business method patents. International Review of Law, Computers, and Technology. 2003, 17(2):127-162.
[168] Teece, D. Managing intellectual capital. Organizational, strategic and policy dimensions.Oxford University Press.2000.
[169] Thumm, N. Management of intellectual property rights in European biotechnology firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2001,67: 259-272.
[170] Thumm, N. Patenting as a protection tool: a reassessment. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Sevilla. IPTS report. 2000, 43, 26-31.
[171] Thumm, N. Strategic patenting in biotechnology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2004,16(4):529-538.
[172] Tufano, P. Financial innovation and first mover advantages. Journal of Financial Economics. 1989.25: 213-240.
[173] Wagner, S. Business method patents in Europe and their strategic use - evidence from franking device manufacturers. SFB Discussion Paper No. 386. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=599743.2004.
[174] Wells, M.G. Internet business method patent policy. Virginia Law Review. 2001,87: 729-780.
[175]Wernerfelt,B.Are source-based view of the firm.Strategic Management Journal.1984,5:171-180.
[176]Wiese,W.D.Death of a myth:the patenting of interact business models after State Street Bank,Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review.2000,4:17-48.
[177]Zhang,Yurong & Yu,Xiang.The patent protection for business method inventions in China.European Intellectual Property Review.2008.10:412-419.
[178]Ziedonis,R.H.Don't fence me in:fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms.Management Science.2004,50(6):804-820.
[179]戴志敏,陈立毅.美国金融类商业方法专利及其启示,外国经济与管理,2003.11,29-33.
[180]冯晓青.企业技术创新与专利战略之探讨.信息技术与标准化.2005.8,34—36.
[181]冯晓青.企业知识产权战略.知识产权出版社.2005.
[182]高山行,贺小雨,胡海平.商业方法专利侵权判定原则研究.情报杂志.2006.7:71-73.
[183]郭斯伦.电子商务商业方法专利的创造性判断标准分析.云南大学学报(法学版).2006.3:36-41.
[184]李玉剑,宣国良.专利联盟:战略联盟研究的新领域,中国工业经济.2004,2:48-54.
[185]刘林青,谭力文,赵浩兴.专利丛林、专利组合和专利联盟——从专利战略到专利群战略.研究与发展管理.2006.4:83-89.
[186]倪颂军,商业银行的金融专利保护问题研究.硕士论文.2005.
[187]戚昌文,邵洋.市场竞争与专利战略.华中理工大学出版社.1995.
[188]任声策,宣国良.企业专利诉讼行为及其影响机制分析.知识产权.2006.241-46.
[189]夏志华,基于金融创新的金融专利研究.硕士论文.2004.
[190]杨雨,朱东华,任志军,林春燕.银行科技创新的专利策略研究.科学学与科学技术管理,2006,4:77-81.
[191]雍海英,李学丽,蒋飞.中资银行商业方法专利战略现状及分析.商业研究.2006.5:28-31.
[192]余翔,张玉蓉.金融专利新战略“专利钓饵”及其防范.研究与发展管理.2008,3:100-105.
[193]余翔,张玉蓉.美国金融业专利战略研究及启示.国际金融研究.2008,3:20-26.
[194]岳贤平,李廉水,顾海英.专利交叉许可的微观机理研究.情报理论与实践.2007,3:306-310.
[195]张铭,商业方法专利在欧洲的保护,http://www.paper.edu.cn/en/downloadpaper.php?serial_number=2OO602-307&type =1
[196]张平.论商业方法软件专利保护的创造性标准——美、日、欧三方专利审查之比较.知识产权,2003.1:25-29.
[197]张平.商业方法软件专利保护:美国的实践及其启示.法商研究.2005.4:138-145.
[198]张玉蓉,余翔.美国金融业商业方法专利实证分析及其对我国的启示.知识产权.2008.2:70-78.
[199]张玉蓉,余翔.我国核电行业专利战略研究.电子知识产权.2006.12:22-27.
[200]章景.银行业金融商业方法专利研究.硕士论文.2005.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |