Author: National Law Forum

A group of in-house attorneys developed the National Law Review on-line edition to create an easy to use resource to capture legal trends and news as they first start to emerge. We were looking for a better way to organize, vet and easily retrieve all the updates that were being sent to us on a daily basis.In the process, we’ve become one of the highest volume business law websites in the U.S. Today, the National Law Review’s seasoned editors screen and classify breaking news and analysis authored by recognized legal professionals and our own journalists. There is no log in to access the database and new articles are added hourly. The National Law Review revolutionized legal publication in 1888 and this cutting-edge tradition continues today.

Department of State Releases June 2011 Visa Bulletin

Posted this week at the National Law Review by Morgan Lewis –  details on the June 2011 Visa Bulletin:

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its June 2011 Visa Bulletin.The Visa Bulletin sets out per country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their status to that of permanent resident, or to obtain approval of an immigrant visa application at an American embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the June 2011 Bulletin Say?

EB-1: All EB-1 categories remain current.

EB-2: Priority dates remain current for foreign nationals in the EB-2 category from all countries except China and India.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for Indian and Chinese nationals are as follows:

China: October 15, 2006 (forward movement of 10 weeks)

India: October 15, 2006 (forward movement of 14 weeks)

EB-3: There is continued backlog in the EB-3 category. 

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: May 15, 2004 (forward movement of four weeks)

India: April 22, 2002 (forward movement of one week)

Mexico: December 22, 2004 (forward movement of 14 weeks)

Philippines: September 15, 2005 (forward movement of three weeks)

Rest of the World: September 15, 2005 (forward movement of three weeks)

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward, or remain static and unchanged. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning, and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the June 2011 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website at http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5452.html.

Copyright © 2011 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Bill Allowing More Offshore Drilling Introduced to Congress

Posted today at the National Law Review by Sabrina Mizrachi of Greenberg Traurig, LLP – news on the Infrastructure Jobs and Energy Independence Act introduced in Congress yesterday……

The Infrastructure Jobs and Energy Independence Act was introduced on May 12, 2011, and seeks to allow more offshore drilling in order to reduce U.S. reliance on imported fuels and create jobs. The bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of four congressmen, Democrats Jim Costa of California and Tim Walz of Minnesota in collaboration with Pennsylvania Republicans Tim Murphy and Bill Shuster.

The bill contains no new taxes or increase of existing taxes, and would allow drillers to reach natural-gas reservoirs that could fuel industry in the U.S. for 63 years and the U.S. oil industry for 80 years, and also create 1.2 million jobs per year.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Comprehensive Summary of the Final Regulations to the ADA Amendments Act

This week’s guest blogger at the National Law Review is Jeffrey S. Nowak of  Franczek Radelet P.C..  Jeffrey provides a very comprehensive overview of the final regulations implementing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA):   

On March 25, 2011, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published final regulations implementing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), a statute that now greatly expands the number of employees and applicants who will be considered “disabled.”  The final regulations fundamentally change the manner in which an employer must treat and manage employees with medical conditions in the workplace, since it now will be much easier for individuals to establish that they are disabled.  This Comprehensive Summary provides an overview of some of the key provisions in the final ADAAA regulations to help employers better understand the key changes in the law and adopt strategies to minimize liability.

Background

As originally enacted, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines an individual with a disability as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that “substantially limits” one or more “major life activities.”  Individuals may also be covered under the ADA if they have a “record of” a disability or are “regarded as” disabled.  Since the ADA took effect, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have construed the definition of disability in a relatively narrow fashion.  On September 25, 2008, President Bush signed the ADAAA into law.  Although the ADAAA retains the same definition of “disability” under the original Act, it makes sweeping changes to the manner in which these terms are to be construed.

In short, the ADAAA and its final regulations now shift the focus of virtually every situation that implicates the ADA.  Before the amendments, the interpretation of the ADA largely focused on whether an individual was substantially limited in a major life activity and, therefore, disabled under the ADA.  Under the ADAAA’s broader construction, the focus is not directed toward the actual definition of disability, but rather on discrimination and reasonable accommodation.  Given the ADA’s new statutory framework and new regulations that stretch the statute even further, employers should be prepared now more than ever before to respond to accommodation requests, make accommodations where necessary, and take precautions to avoid discriminatory decisions involving employees and applicants with medical conditions.

A copy of the final regulations can be found here.  The EEOC also has issued a guidance sheet and a fact sheet to aid employers in understanding the final regulations.

The final regulations address key issues, which are covered in this executive summary.

  • Will certain impairments always be considered “disabilities”?
  • What constitutes a “major life activity?”
  • What does it mean to be “substantially limited” in a major life activity?
  • To what extent are temporary or episodic impairments considered disabilities?
  • How do “mitigating measures” affect the analysis of whether an individual is disabled?
  • What does it mean for an employee to be “regarded as” disabled?

Broad Construction of the Definition of “Disability”

Taking its lead from the ADAAA, the final regulations provide that the definition of “disability” should be “broadly” construed “to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA.”  (The message from Congress and the EEOC to employers could not be any clearer: Stop focusing on whether an individual is disabled and focus instead on reasonable accommodation.)  Although the final regulations track the definition of “disability,” a term which remained intact, the regulations clarify that there is a shift in focus to whether employers have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination occurred, as opposed to whether an individual meets the definition of a “disability.”

Certain impairments “virtually always” covered

Further illustrating the point, in spite of the ADAAA’s (and the final regulations’) rejection of the notion of a “per se” disability, the final regulations take the extraordinary step of listing certain impairments that “will, as a factual matter, virtually always be found to impose a substantial limitation on a major life activity.”  The EEOC suggests that these assessments should be “particularly simple and straightforward” (tellingly, the title of the subsection is “Predictable Assessments”).  These impairments include:

  • Deafness
  • Blindness
  • Intellectual disability (formerly known as mental retardation)
  • Partially or completely missing limbs
  • Mobility impairments requiring the use of a wheelchair
  • Autism
  • Cancer
  • Cerebral palsy
  • Diabetes
  • Epilepsy
  • HIV or AIDS
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Muscular dystrophy
  • Major depression
  • Bipolar disorder
  • Post-traumatic stress disorder
  • Obsessive compulsive disorder
  • Schizophrenia

This list includes many conditions that often were not substantially limiting impairments under the pre-ADAAA.  Nevertheless, the list tends to undermine the EEOC’s long-held position that an “individualized assessment” should be conducted to determine whether an impairment is indeed a disability.

Notably, the final regulations removed a section from the proposed regulations that listed certain impairments that “may be disabling for some individuals but not for others,” such as asthma, back/leg impairment, carpal tunnel syndrome, high blood pressure, psychiatric impairment (less severe than major depression) and learning disability.  In light of the expansive sweep of the final regulations, however, plaintiffs with impairments like these, as well as others, likely will not face a difficult task in convincing a court that they are disabled.

Less Demanding Standard for “Substantially Limits”?

To be disabled, one must have an impairment that “substantially limits” a major life activity.  Under the pre-ADAAA, employers often questioned the extent to which an impairment must “substantially limit” before an individual is considered disabled.  Unfortunately for employers, the EEOC declined to quantify the term “substantially limits” in the final ADAAA regulations, explaining that “a new definition would…lead to greater focus and intensity of attention on the threshold issue of coverage than intended by Congress.”  As such, the final regulations offer employers little concrete guidance in identifying the threshold at which an impairment qualifies as “substantially limiting,” aside from the presumption that it must be a lower threshold than previously adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decisions leading up to passage of the ADAAA.

Instead, the regulations provide “nine rules of construction” to be applied in determining whether an impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity.  Most of the rules come directly from the language of the ADAAA, but several have been added by the EEOC:

  1. “The term ‘substantially limits’ shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA.  ‘Substantially limits’ is not meant to be a demanding standard.”
  2. The determination of whether an impairment is “substantially limiting” should be made by comparing the ability of an individual to the general population.  The impairment does not need to “prevent, or significantly or severely restrict” the performance of a major life activity in order to be substantially limiting.
  3. In all ADA cases, the focus should be on whether the employer has complied with its statutory obligations, since the “threshold issue” of substantially limits should not require extensive analysis.
  4. “The determination requires an ‘individualized assessment,’ but the assessment should be done by requiring “a degree of functional limitation that is lower than the standard for ‘substantially limits’ applied prior to the ADAAA.”
  5. Comparing an individual’s performance of a major life activity to the general population should not generally require scientific, medical or statistical analysis.
  6. The determination should be made without regard to the “ameliorative effects of mitigating measures” other than ordinary contact lenses and eyeglasses.
  7. “An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.”
  8. An impairment need not limit more than one major life activity.
  9. The effects of an impairment lasting or expecting to last fewer than six months can be “substantially limiting.”

The Effect of Condition, Manner and Duration

Commenting further on the “substantially limits” prong, the final regulations explain that, to determine whether an individual is “substantially limited” in a major life activity, it may be useful to consider the condition under or the manner in which an individual performs a major life activity; the duration of time it takes the individual to the activity as compared to most people in the general population; and the difficulty, effort, pain or amount of time required to perform the activity.

For example, under the new regulations, it does not matter whether an individual with a learning disability can read and write like the majority of people in the general population.  The regulations focus instead on how difficult it was for the individual to reach the level of literacy, (i.e., how long it took and the conditions which the individual had to overcome).  As a result, an individual may be substantially limited in a major life activity even if he or she can perform the activity at the same level as the general population, if it took more time, effort or work to become proficient compared to most people in the general population.

The Interpretation of “Major Life Activities” is Expanded Further

To be disabled under the law, one must have a physical or mental impairment that “substantially limits” one or more “major life activities”.  When determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity, according to the final regulations and EEOC’s interpretive guidance provide, the process should “not demand extensive analysis” and “usually will not require scientific, medical or statistical analysis.”

Notably, the final regulations expand an already “non-exhaustive” list of what may be deemed major life activities to include eating, sleeping, standing, lifting, bending, reading, concentrating, thinking and communicating.  The final regulations also include additional examples of major life activities, such as sitting, reaching and interacting with others.  When determining other examples of major life activities, the final regulations expressly reject the pre-ADAAA interpretation that the activity must be of “central importance to daily life,” a rule which expressly rejects the Supreme Court’s ruling in Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams.  In effect, an activity no longer is required to be of “central importance.”

In a significant departure from the past, the ADAAA and final regulations expand the definition of “major life activities” to include the “operation of major bodily functions,” such as the immune system and normal cell growth, and neurological, bowel, bladder, circulatory and reproductive functions.  The final regulations list several additional functions, such as cardiovascular, lymphatic and musculoskeletal, and specify that the operation of a major bodily function includes the operation of an individual organ within the body (such as the liver or heart).  The appendix to the final regulations provides several examples of impairments that affect major bodily functions, e.g., cancer affects normal cell growth; diabetes affects functions of the pancreas and endocrine system; and rheumatoid arthritis affects musculoskeletal functions.

Work as a “major life activity”

The regulations also breathe new life into the “major life activity” of working.  Under the pre- ADAAA, a plaintiff’s claim that he or she was substantially limited in the major life activity of work almost always was dismissed by the court, largely because the employee was unable to show that the impairment substantially limited the employee’s ability to perform a “broad range” of jobs.  The final regulations maintain this requirement but lower the employee’s burden, claiming that this previous standard was “overly strict.”  Under the new regulations, if an individual’s job requires heavy lifting but the employee cannot lift heavy items and cannot perform the job or other jobs that require heavy lifting, then the employee is substantially limited in performing the class of jobs that require heavy lifting.  Is this shift in the rule all for naught?  As the final regulations point out, an impairment that substantially limits working will in most situations also substantially limit another major life activity.

Other Significant Regulatory Changes

Nearly All “Mitigating Measures” Are No Longer Considered

Under prior Supreme Court and federal appellate court precedent, employers were allowed to consider “mitigating measures” in determining whether an individual’s impairment substantially limits a major life activity under the ADA.  For example, if an individual used a hearing aid or cochlear implant due to a hearing impairment, it typically was not considered a disability because the individual was not substantially limited in the major life activity of hearing.  Because of the mitigating measure (i.e., the hearing aid), they could hear perfectly well.  Under the new regulations, however, employers are no longer allowed to consider such measures.  As a result, employers will be required to analyze each individual’s impairment in its unmitigated state.  Thus, the individual with a hearing aid would likely be substantially limited in hearing because we are obligated now to consider them without the use of a hearing aid.

The final regulations do provide one important exception: employers are permitted to consider the ameliorative effects of using ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses.  The term “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” is defined as lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity or to eliminate refractive error.  For example, an individual with severe myopia whose visual acuity is fully corrected is not substantially limited in seeing because the ameliorative effect of the lenses must be considered.  Similarly, eyeglasses or contact lenses that are the wrong or outdated prescription may nevertheless be “ordinary” if there is evidence that a proper prescription would fully correct visual acuity or eliminate refractive error.

What is also important to note is that both the ameliorative and non-ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, as well as the individual’s use or non-use of such measures (e.g., taking or refusing to take medication, even though prescribed by a physician) can be considered when determining whether the employee is a “qualified” individual with a disability or whether the employee poses a direct threat to safety; however, it will not affect whether the individual meets the definition of being disabled.

Temporary and Episodic Impairments May Constitute disabilities

Under the final regulations, short-term impairments and chronic impairments with short-term symptoms may be considered disabilities.  In the past, many courts declined to extend ADA coverage to individuals whose impairments were substantially limiting for only a short or limited period of time.  The new regulations reject this reasoning and prescribe that the duration of an impairment or symptom should not be dispositive in determining whether an individual is disabled.

Temporary and Short-Term Impairments

Clearly, one of the most significant changes to the final regulations is the EEOC’s decision to reject the long-held view that temporary impairments are not substantially limiting.  The EEOC previously took the position that the duration or expected duration of an impairment should be considered in determining whether the impairment is disabling.  That no longer appears to be the case.  The final regulations ambiguously state that “an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting.” (Emphasis added).  When this language was first proposed, many commenters expressed that the new language would create confusion as to how long an employer’s impairment must last or be expected to last in order to impose ADA obligations on the employer.  (Further complicating matters, the regulations state that an employee who is regarded as having a “transitory and minor” impairment that is expected to heal shortly is not considered disabled.  Thus, it is conceivable that individual with a temporary impairment, such as a broken hand, may be disabled because the impairment substantially limits a major life activity, but may not be “regarded as” disabled for purposes of the Act.)

In response to these concerns, the EEOC opined that specifying a durational minimum for a disability would impose a more stringent standard than what Congress required.  In fact, the final regulations go even further than the proposed regulations on this point.  In the proposed rules, the EEOC identified a category of temporary non-chronic impairments that usually would not be considered a disability—for example, the common cold, seasonal influenza, a sprained joint, minor and non-chronic gastrointestinal disorders, a broken bone expected to heal completely, appendicitis and seasonal allergies.  The EEOC deleted this category in the final regulations, explaining that the provision caused confusion and was too limiting.

The EEOC’s position on the issue of temporary impairments is debatable.  It is not clear that Congress intended to extend ADA coverage to short-lived impairments.  Moreover, it is still likely that certain impairments of short duration which are expected to heal quickly, such as a common cold or a sprained ankle, will not be considered disabilities.  However, the regulations make clear that employers must consider all impairments, even short term ones, on a case-by-case basis.

Episodic Impairments

Under the ADAAA and the final regulations, an episodic impairment or impairment in remission is a disability if the impairment would substantially limit a major life activity when active.  This means that an individual with a serious chronic condition such as epilepsy or cancer could be considered disabled under the Act even if that person rarely or never experiences symptoms that would impact their employment.  The regulations provide specific examples of impairments that may be episodic in nature, including epilepsy, cancer, multiple sclerosis, hypertension, diabetes, asthma, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

The Act’s express inclusion of episodic impairments presents some practical challenges for employers.  Many episodic impairments are unpredictable in their effects on the individual.  For example, an employee diagnosed with asthma may not experience an attack for several months.  However, the fact that an asthma attack could limit a major life activity may require the employer to provide a reasonable accommodation.  The same is true for progressive impairments, such as Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s Disease.  Many Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s patients do not experience any symptoms in the early stages of the disease.  Nevertheless, the fact that an individual could at some point in the future experience symptoms that would substantially limit a major life activity likely would render the person disabled even before the condition worsens and (practically speaking) substantially limits a major life activity.

“Regarded As” Individuals Need Only Prove Perception of an “Impairment”

Under the original ADA as interpreted by the courts, an individual was “regarded as” disabled only when the employer perceived the individual to have an impairment that “substantially limited” him or her in a major life activity.  Under the final regulations, the same individual seeking to bring a “regarded as” claim need not prove that the employer believed the individual to have an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, but merely that the employer perceived the employee as having an “impairment,” and based an employment decision on that perception.

Under the ADAAA, an individual subjected to a prohibited action (e.g., failure to hire, denial of promotion, termination or harassment) because of an actual or perceived impairment will meet the “regarded as” definition of disability whether or not the impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity unless the impairment is both transitory and minor.  The ADAAA further clarifies that a person who is “regarded as” disabled is not entitled to a reasonable accommodation unless the person also fits within one of the other two prongs of the definition of “disability.”

Notably, the final regulations specify that the “regarded as” prong should be the primary means of establishing coverage in ADA cases that do not involve reasonable accommodation, and that consideration of coverage under the first and second prongs will generally not be necessary except in situations where an individual needs a reasonable accommodation.

The final regulations further clarify that establishing that an individual is “regarded as having such an impairment” does not, by itself, establish liability.  Thus, even where an individual proves that an employer made a decision on the basis of an actual or perceived impairment, the employee must still show that he was “qualified” for the position in question in order to establish an ADA violation (i.e., he can perform the essential job functions of the position with or without a reasonable accommodation).   The employer may also utilize any otherwise available statutory defenses.  For example, an employer may still defend a decision to refuse to hire an applicant on the grounds that the individual would pose a “direct threat” to health and safety due to the nature of his impairment.

The proposed regulations originally identified several concrete examples of “transitory and minor” impairments that would not be sufficient to meet the “regarded as” prong of the statute, such as a broken bone that is expected to heal normally or a sprained wrist that was expected to heal in three weeks.  Unfortunately, these concrete examples were omitted from in the final regulations, leaving employers without clear guidance as to what constitutes a “transitory and minor” impairment.  Instead the appendix to the final regulations stress only that the inquiry as to whether an impairment is “transitory and minor” is an objective standard and provides these examples:

For example, an employer who terminates an employee whom it believes has bipolar disorder cannot take advantage of this exception by asserting that it believed the employee’s impairment was transitory and minor, since bipolar disorder is not objectively transitory and minor.  At the same time, an employer that terminated an employee with an objectively ‘‘transitory and minor’’ hand wound, mistakenly believing it to be symptomatic of HIV infection, will nevertheless have ‘‘regarded’’ the employee as an individual with a disability, since the covered entity took a prohibited employment action based on a perceived impairment (HIV infection) that is not ‘‘transitory and minor.’’

Notably, the final regulations give no example of an impairment that EEOC would find to be “transitory and minor” under this standard.

What about an employee’s symptoms?

In a nod to employers, the final regulations do not include a provision contained in the proposed regulations providing that actions taken because of an impairment’s symptoms (or because of the use of mitigating measures) constitute actions taken because of an impairment under the “regarded as” prong.  Employer commentary pointed out that this proposed standard could create liability for an employer when, for example, disciplining an employee for violating a workplace rule, even where the violation resulted from a symptom of an underlying impairment of which the employer was unaware.  This would have resulted in a clear departure from the EEOC’s existing policy guidance and court decisions, which recognize, among other things, that an employer may discipline an employee for job related misconduct resulting from a disability if the rule or expectation at issue is job related and consistent with business necessity.  EEOC Enforcement Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act and Psychiatric Disabilities, EEOC Notice No.  915.002 Mar. 25, 1997 http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/psych.html.  The preamble to the Final Regulations states that this prior Guidance remains in effect, at least for now.

How Do Employers Respond to the New Regulations?

One might ask whether any employee is considered disabled under these new regulations.  Clearly, the ADAAA and its final regulations change how employers respond to and manage employees with medical conditions and who request accommodations in the workplace.  At a minimum, we suggest employers take the following approach to the “new” ADA.

  • The range of impairments that may substantially limit a major life activity has widened considerably.  Although not every impairment will constitute a disability, the analysis of whether an impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity will not be the focus of a court’s inquiry.  In light of this change in emphasis, employers should not focus on whether an employee is actually “disabled;” rather, they should focus on insuring that they are in compliance with the statute.  Therefore, as an initial matter, employers should review and revise workplace reasonable accommodation policies to ensure employees are aware of the policies and to make clear the lines of communication as to accommodations in the workplace.  Similarly, employers should maintain processes for identifying, evaluating, documenting and providing reasonable accommodations as required.
  • Employers should be proactive about engaging in an interactive process with employees who have an impairment.  In doing so, they should identify which among their personnel will be responsible for addressing issues of accommodation, and actually engage in an interactive process when an individual makes a request for assistance in the workplace.  An employer’s best tactic in defending an ADA lawsuit is to demonstrate that it made good faith efforts to accommodate an employee, rather than questioning or challenging the employee’s medical condition.  Thus, the interactive process above must become the norm.
  • Review all job descriptions to ensure they specifically and accurately describe the essential functions of the job.  Notably, under the new definition of a “regarded as” disability, any decision that relies in whole or in part on any perceived or actual physical impairment will be subject to scrutiny under the ADAAA.  It is now more important than ever to insure that any physical or mental job requirements are truly necessary.Employers should insure that all anti-harassment policies explicitly prohibit harassment based on disability, or perceived or actual physical or mental impairments.  Potential liability for disability-related harassment claims has increased because offensive statements that relate in any way to a mental or physical impairment may give rise to liability, regardless of whether the alleged victim actually suffered from an impairment or was otherwise disabled.  For example, an employee who calls a co-worker “psycho” or “retarded” could potentially create an actionable hostile work environment under the ADA even if the co-worker has no mental health history and has an above-average IQ.
  • Properly and contemporaneously document employment decisions involving an employee who is an individual with a disability or has a record of a disability.
  • Analyze pre- and post-employment testing and screening (including language contained in employment applications) to ensure they are job-related and consistent with business necessity.
  • Train supervisors and managers as to the broad coverage of the ADAAA and their responsibilities under the new Act.  At a minimum, the focus of training should include: 1) how they identify requests for workplace modifications; and 2) who they partner with in Human Resources as to the “interactive process” regarding modifications.

© 2011, Franczek Radelet P.C. 


Appeals Court Overturns Stem Cell Ban

Recently posted at the National Law Review  by WarrenWoessner of  Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.– an update in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concerning research using human embryonic stem cells.

On April 29th, in Sherley v. Sebelius, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir., overturned the injunction imposed by the district court, which had blocked the implementation of the 2009 NIH Guidelines on finding research using human embryonic stem cells. 74 Fed. Reg. 32170(2009). The Guidelines, in turn, had been formulated to implement President Obama’s executive order 13505 that lifted President Bush’s executive order banning such funding. The suit, brought by two researchers working with adult stem cells, argued that the Guidelines were in conflict with the 1996 Dickey-Wicker Act, which banned funding for both research that would create human embryos for research purposes or would destroy human embryos. For more background, see my post of Sept. 1, 2010.

The Court found that preliminary injunction was improperly granted “becauseDickey-Wicker is ambiguous and the NIH seems reasonably to have concluded that, although [D-W] bars funding for the destructive act of deriving an ESC from an embryo, it does not prohibit funding a research project in which an ESC will be used.”  In other words, if some other unfunded entity disassembles an unwanted embryo obtained with informed consent of the donor from an in vitro fertilization clinic and provides the ESCs to a researcher, the researcher can obtain federal funding to study them. Since establishing the Guidelines, the NIH has approved additional ESC lines for federal funding. While this is good news for researchers working with embryonic stem cell lines approved under the NIH Guidelines, the underlying suit will continue to threaten the administration’s more liberal view of stem cell research.

© 2011 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

EPA, Clean Air Act & Climate Change: Consider the Facts

This week’s guest blogger at the National Law Review is Jon D. Sohn of  McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP.  Jon provides a great overview of some recent hearings and proposed legislation impacting greenhouse gas regulations at both the state and federal levels:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken a lot of hits from those opposed to greenhouse gas regulations in the past week.  In the House of Representatives, tough hearings led by U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield, (R-KY), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy, were held with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Jackson’s testimony followed that of lead witness Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) who promoted his upcoming book, “The Hoax,” which takes aim at the science of climate change.  The House subsequently passed an amendment to the proposed Continuing Resolution that would strip EPA of its authority to regulate GHG emissions and significantly decrease funding for environmental and clean energy programs. Meanwhile, outside of Washington, D.C., the first two permits considered by EPA suggest cleaner facilities and job creation can be compatible with new regulations as opposed to some of the concerns expressed in the hearings and continuing resolution.

This past week, South Dakota issued a draft permit for Best Available Control Technology for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to the Hyperion Energy Center. Project owners describe the facility as a “HEC is a 400,000-barrel per day (BPD) highly-complex, full-conversion refinery which will produce clean, green, transportation fuel such as ultra-low sulfur gasoline (ULSG) and ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD).” South Dakota regulatory officials found that significant energy efficiency improvements to the refinery were the most cost-effective manner to move forward.  The officials considered carbon capture & storage as an alternative path, but decided that while the technology is technically feasible it is not cost-effective or environmentally appropriate in this instance.  EPA will now have 30-days to review the decision, but don’t expect any radical changes to the State-level decision. Construction will create an estimated 4,500 jobs and when finished, 1,826 permanent jobs will be created for the ongoing operation of the refinery and associated utility plant according to company officials.

In Louisiana, State regulators recently approved an air quality construction and operating permit that includes emissions control requirements for greenhouse gases as well.  The permit clears the way for an iron production facility, the initial phase of the construction of a larger Nucor iron and steelmaking facility in St. James Parish. Under the permit granted, the greenhouse gas limits rely on energy efficiency measures and set a 13 million British thermal units of natural gas per metric ton of direct reduced iron. State regulators estimate the plant will emit 3.39 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.  500 construction jobs and 150 permanent jobs will be created according to Nucor, although they would like the facility to be larger and note regulatory uncertainty as a cause of concern. On the other hand, some environmental groups including the Tulane Law Clinic may challenge that the permit is not strict enough. EPA will now conduct a review here as well.

Congress would be well-advised to consider these case studies as it moves forward in its deliberations.

© 2011 McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP

EPA and Corps Issue Draft Guidance on Waterways and Wetlands That Fall Under Federal Jurisdiction as Part of Obama Administration’s Just Released Clean Water Framework

Recently posted by Linda H. Bochert of  Michael Best & Friedrich LLP – details about the recent draft guidance issued about when a wetland is subject to federal jurisdiction: 

Five years after the US Supreme Court issued the decision that was supposed to – but didn’t – clarify when a wetland is subject to federal jurisdiction, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) are seeking public comment on draft guidance intended to explain how such decisions are to be made.

The Draft Guidance on Federal Jurisdiction

On April 27, 2011, EPA and the Corps issued “Draft Guidance on Identifying Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act” (“Draft Guidance”). The Draft Guidance interprets two key Supreme Court decisions, often referred to as Rapanos and SWANCC. Rapanos is the 2006 Supreme Court decision in the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 547 UW 715 (2006); SWANCC is the 2001 Supreme Court decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001). The Draft Guidance addresses both wetlands and waterbodies and is limited to whether the federal Clean Water Act applies; it does not determine what state laws or regulations might apply.

After years of confusion, the 2006 decision in Rapanos was widely anticipated to provide a clear test for when a wetland is subject to federal jurisdiction. It failed to do so. The court split three ways, with no point of view supported by a majority of the justices. The prevailing view since Rapanos has been that a wetland is subject to federal jurisdiction if it satisfies either of two tests:  1) the wetland must be immediately adjacent to a navigable body of water that has a relatively permanent flow; or 2) there is a “significant nexus” between the wetland and a body of water that was, is, or could be made navigable. But stating the tests and applying them are two different things – and application of that two-part test has been anything but clear-cut.  For more on Rapanos andSWANCC, see our June 29, 2006 Client Alert: Wetlands and Water Bodies Must Have “Significant Nexus” with a Navigable Water to Fall Under the Jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.

The EPA and the Corps are taking another run at it. The Draft Guidance is carefully described as “consistent with Supreme Court decisions and existing agency regulations” – presumably to combat anticipated criticism that it either overreaches or underreaches the current state of the law, although the critics have already begun to weigh in. 

Under the Draft Guidance, federal jurisdiction would apply to wetlands that:

  • are adjacent to either traditional navigable waters or interstate waters
  • directly abut relatively permanent waters
  • are adjacent to jurisdictional tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters if there is a “significant nexus”

    And federal jurisdiction would apply to waterbodies that are:

  • traditional navigable waterbodies
  • interstate waterbodies
  • non-navigable tributaries to traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent (contain water at least seasonally)
  • tributaries to traditional navigable waters or interstate waters if there is a “significant nexus”
  • in the category of “other waters” – including some that are physically proximate to other jurisdictional waters and some that are not, based on fact specific circumstancesFollowing the 60-day public comment period, EPA and the Corps intend to finalize the Guidance and then initiate formal rulemaking.  The message of that process is that the agencies want to identify as much of the anticipated controversy about their interpretation as possible before drafting a federal regulation implementing that interpretation.

    Effect in Wisconsin

    Implementation of the Draft Guidance is not likely to have a significant impact in Wisconsin.   As far as waterbodies are concerned, Wisconsin has historically taken a broad view of navigability for purposes of state jurisdiction.  With respect to wetlands, as explained in our June 2006 Client Alert following the SWANCC decision the Wisconsin Legislature extended the jurisdiction of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“WDNR”) to include “nonfederal wetlands”.  Wis. Stat. §. 281.36(1m). Thus, a nonfederal wetland may still be subject to state water quality standards and permit requirements implemented by WDNR, even if it does not come within federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. 

    The Clean Water Framework

    The Draft Guidance is part of the Obama Administration’s national Clean Water Framework also released on April 27, 2011. The Clean Water Framework “recognizes the importance of clean water and healthy watersheds to our economy, environment and communities” and is composed of the following initiatives:

    • promoting innovative partnerships
    • enhancing communities and economies by restoring important water bodies
    • innovating for more water-efficient communities
    • ensuring clean water to protect public health
    • enhancing use and enjoyment of our waters
    • updating the nation’s water policies – this initiative includes the Draft Guidance
    • supporting science to solve water problems

     

    © MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

ABA Recent Developments in State and Local Government Law – Live Webinar Teleconference Series May 19th

The National Law Review wanted to bring your attention to the upcoming Live Webinar and Teleconference Series on Recent Developments in State and Local Government Law. 

Program Information:    

Thursday, May 19, 2011—11:00 AM – 12:30 PM Eastern 
Sex, Drugs and Government?
Program Description | Individual Online Registration | Group Online Registration 
Event Code: cet1sdg

Thursday, May 19, 2011—1:00 PM – 2:00 PM Eastern 
Cyberbullying
Program Description | Individual Online Registration | Group Online Registration 
Event Code: cet1cbb

Thursday, May 19, 2011—2:30 PM – 3:30 PM Eastern 
Ethics of Social Networking (Ethics Credit)
Program Description | Individual Online Registration | Group Online Registration 
Event Code: cet1esn

Register for the entire series or alternatively view additional information and register for individual programs by clicking here.   CLE credit available.


 

“Innocent” Criminals: Criminal Copyright Infringement, Willfulness and Fair Use

The National Law Review would like to congratulate Charles Francis Scott of  Pace University School of Law  one of our Spring 2011 Student Legal Writing Contest Winners.  Charles’ topic is the “willfullness”  prong of criminal copyright infringement:    

I. INTRODUCTION

            On November 17, 2010, Gawker Media LLC published on its popular blog, Gawker, excerpts of Sarah Palin’s unreleased book America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag.[1]  In response to the release, Palin tweeted, “Isn’t that illegal?”[2]  Defending itself, Gawker mockingly wrote to Palin in a post titled Sarah Palin is Mad at Us for Leaking Pages From Her Book, telling her to “take a moment to familiarize yourself with the law.  . . . Or skip the totally boring reading and call one of your lawyers.  They’ll walk you through it” and attached pages on the copyright law’s fair use doctrine.[3]  After Gawker refused to remove the excerpts from its blog, Palin’s publisher, HarperCollins, filed suit against Gawker and obtained a preliminary injunction on November 20, 2010.[4]  By November 23, 2010, Gawker agreed to keep the material off its website for good and settled the suit with HarperCollins.[5]  Ignoring the underlying political and ideological tension between Gawker and Palin,[6] this incident highlights a very important issue: the complex and commonly misunderstood fair use doctrine. 

            The fair use doctrine has been a large source of legal uncertainty and, as a result, has led many civil copyright infringement suits to settle out of court.[7]  While it might be desirable that civil suits are settled out of court for judicial efficiency, the doctrine’s uncertainty poses a problem when fair use is used as an affirmative defense against criminal charges of copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 506.[8]  In order to convict an individual of criminal infringement, the individual must have willfully infringed a copyright (1) for commercial or financial gain; (2) reproducing or distributing copies with a total retail value over $1000; or (3) making an unpublished work publicly available on a computer.[9]  The fair use doctrine states that there are certain uses, subject to a four factor balance test, where an individual can use or copy a copyrighted work without infringing.[10]  The fair use defense would then argue that either (1) the use was not infringing because it was a fair use; or (2) the individual did not willfully infringe because he or she believed the use was a fair use. 

            A problem arises when an individual believes in good faith his or her copying is a fair use but does not pass the factor test and is actually infringing.  Depending on the courts interpretation of “willfully,” this good faith, but mistaken belief, can be the difference between conviction and freedom.  As illustrated in the Gawker-Palin example, even sophisticated parties, who presumptively have personal legal counsel, misinterpret the bounds of the fair use doctrine.  If sophisticated individuals find difficulty in the nuances of the doctrine, what can be expected of the unsophisticated individual?  Since the mens rea of willfully is attached to a section 506(a) charge, barring a bad faith fair use defense, will a fair use defense always absolve a defendant?

            This article will look at the fair use doctrine as an affirmative defense against the criminal charge of copyright infringement under section 506(a) and whether it serves as a suitable defense within the statute, or whether the statute needs to be revised to avoid the problems created by the fair use doctrine.  Part II will give a brief background of section 506(a) for a charge of criminal copyright infringement and analyze the case law defining “willfulness” generally and its application to the mens rea of section 506(a).  Part III will review the fair use doctrine and the issues created when fair use is used as a defense.  Part IV will briefly examine certain policy considerations in relation to criminal copyright infringement.  Finally, this article will conclude that the fair use doctrine is too vague of a doctrine to be an effective defense and may reduce section 506(a) to a “toothless” statute.[11]  As a result, the statute should be amended by increasing the monetary criminal trigger from $1,000 to at least $25,000 and the term “willfully” needs to be defined in accordance with the majority view.

II.  § 506(a) BACKGROUND AND WILLFULNESS STANDARD

            Criminal copyright infringement is codified under 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) and the punishment guidelines is under 18 U.S.C. § 2319.[12]  Under section 506(a), criminal copyright infringement is anyone who willfully infringes a copyright (1) for commercial or financial gain; (2) reproducing or distributing copies with a total retail value over $1000; or (3) making an unpublished work publicly available on a computer if that person knew the work was intended for commercial distribution.[13]  To prove willful infringement, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyright work will not be sufficient.[14] The government has the burden to prove all four elements which are: (1) a valid copyright; (2) infringement of that copyright; (3) willfulness; and (4) one of the qualifying violations of section 506(a)(1)(A)-(C).[15]  The first two elements are the same that must be shown in a civil infringement case.[16]  The difference between civil and criminal infringement is the addition of the third and fourth element. 

            Unlike civil infringement, which is a strict liability offense, criminal infringement requires that the government prove the individual acted willfully.    However, the definition of “willfulness” has been left up to the courts’ interpretation since Congress failed to define it.[17]  Unfortunately, “willfulness” has long been a thorn in court’s side when used in the context of criminal law.[18]  It was not untilUnited States v. Moran[19]that the court was confronted with interpreting the vague term’s meaning under section 506(a).

            In Moran, Moran was a full-time police officer and owner of a “mom and pop” video rental store.[20]  Moran made a practice of purchasing legal videos, making a single duplicate of the original, renting the copy, and keeping the original to “insure” the video from theft or damage.[21]  Moran testified that he believed his actions were legal.[22]  He argued that “the word ‘willful’ implies the kind of specific intent . . . which is to say, a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.”[23]  The government argued that willful only meant “an intent to copy and not to infringe.”[24]  In coming to its decision, the court looked to a prior Supreme Court case dealing with the term “willfully” in a criminal statute.

            In Cheek v. United States,[25] Cheek was charged with willfully failing to file federal income taxes and willfully attempting to evade his taxes.[26]  Cheek claimed that he believed the tax code was unconstitutional and therefore believed he did not have to pay taxes.[27]  The court held that while the “general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution,” an exception is made when the term “willfully” is used in complex criminal statutes.[28]  Due to the complexity of the tax code, “willfulness . . . simply means a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.”[29]  The government then has the burden to prove that the defendant knew of the duty and voluntarily and intentionally violated it.[30]  Therefore, “a good faith belief that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable.”[31]

       Using the reasoning of Cheek, the Moran court was persuaded that “willfully” carried the same meaning under 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) and was similarly exempt from the presumption that ignorance of the law or mistake of the law is no defense.[32]  Accordingly, the court held that Moran’s lack of sophistication, in addition to the totality of the circumstances, negated the willfulness requirement.[33] However, it should be noted, the lack of willfulness does not eliminate civil liability for copyright infringement.[34]

      The holding in Moran has since become the majority view, while the minority view interprets “willfully” as only the intent to copy.[35]  These two views are drastically different; from who carries the burden of proof to the consequence facing an individual who believed his use was protected by fair use.  Unlike the clear complexity of the tax code, the fair use doctrine appears straight-forward but is deceptively complex.[36]  Faced with this complexity, the statute should be amended to define “willfully” in accordance with the majority view and create consistency throughout the courts.

      The outcomes of a fair use balancing test can be unpredictable and creates uncertainty in its application.[37]  Applying the minor’s view, “innocent” infringers face the possibility of being labeled criminals.  By adopting the majority’s definition of “willfully”, prosecution will have the burden of showing that an individual has themens rea warranting criminal punishment.  Additionally, by codifying the majority’s definition, there will be minimal disruption to current law.

III.  FAIR USE

      Section 107 of the Copyright Act allows for the use of a copyrighted work for limited purposes such as “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . ., scholarship, or research.”[38]  Whether that use is eligible for the fair use defense depends on the court’s evaluation of four factors set forth in section 107.[39]These four factors are: (1) the purpose and character of the use (i.e. whether such use is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit purposes); (2) the nature of the copyright (i.e. whether the work is fact based or creative); (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.[40]  While the courts have held that all the factors must be examined and weighed together, the fourth factor has been given the most weight.[41]

      This first factor of the fair use doctrine is usually split into two separate questions.  The first question asks whether the use is “transformative,” meaning, whether it “supersede[s] the objects’ of the original creation.”[42]  The second question asks whether the use is “commercial.”[43]  Since “transformative” and “commercial” are general terms and are susceptible to various interpretations, the first factor can be confusing.  In Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios,[44]the court acknowledged that time-shifting[45] was an acceptable “private, noncommercial” transformative use “in the home”.[46]  However, when compared to BMG Music v. Gonzalez,[47]which held that Gonzalez’s music downloading on a try-before-you-buy basis was a commercial use, the line between commercial and noncommercial, especially for private, personal use, becomes hazy.  Both seem like private, noncommercial uses in the home for personal use, but Gonzalez’s actions supplant her actually purchasing music.[48]  This creates a fine distinction that the unsophisticated individual could misunderstand.  What exactly is commercial if personal use can be both commercial and noncommercial?  Is loading potentially infringing content on YouTube or a similar streaming website commercial if the user does not have a financial interest in the website?[49]

       If an individual posts a clip to his blog or YouTube of a scene from his favorite TV show, saying just that, he could believe he is protected by the fair use doctrine.  He believes the use is noncommercial because he’s not receiving any money from it and he is only using a small portion of the show.  He could believe that he’s making commentary on the piece by saying it is his favorite piece.  Finally, since he is not making any money from posting the video, he does not believe he has any effect on the copyrighted work’s market.  Within a 180 day period it is very possible that the video is viewed well over 100,000 times.  The $1000 or even the $2500 threshold under section 506(a) could easily be attained. 

     It is feasible that a court could find fair use under these facts or slightly different facts because of the variables of the balancing test.[50]  One commentator likened the fair use balancing test to “balancing a dinner plate on the pointy end of a nail.”[51]  Since each evaluation of fair use is fact specific, and all the factors vary in weight depending on those facts, the outcomes are sometimes unpredictable.  As such, the unpredictability of fair use seems to breed fertile ground for an individual to make a good faith mistake in evaluating his or her actions.

      Depending on the district an individual is in, and the interpretation of “willfulness” observed, this mistake can be the difference between walking away a free man or going away a felon.  If the court is within the majority, an individual can theoretically always negate “willfully,” absent evidence that the individual’s belief was not in good faith.  “If a person can claim ‘fair use’ and escape criminal penalties, then the law has no teeth since alleged infringers will invariably assert this defense.”[52]  Alternatively, if the court is within the minority, an individual will not be allowed a mistake defense and will only avoid conviction if the fair use analysis is successful.  These two outcomes are polar opposites; one is too lenient while the other is too severe. 

IV. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

            Is the infringement of $1000 worth of copyrighted material worth labeling that individual a felon or criminal, even if he did not believe his actions were illegal?[53]  “Felon is a word that should be reserved for individuals committing crimes that damage a victim beyond repair through civil means.”[54] Civil remedies are more suitable in such a case. Incarceration for up to three years for the infringement of $2500 worth of copyrighted material[55] is excessive when civil remedies are available to recover those damages.  If the basis of enacting criminal laws are for “deterring future crimes, stigmatizing offenders, expressing community values, extracting retribution, reforming the offender, and so on,”[56]what are the “retributive function[s] . . . these statutes convey?”[57]  If the offender does not know his actions are illegal, the statute does not achieve these goals.  Furthermore, public opinion does not believe the punishment fits the crime in such low level infringement, as evidenced by the outcry over a Twilight fan’s arrest for taping a birthday party during a viewing of the film “New Moon.”[58]

            Additionally, the cost attributed to the enforcement and incarceration of such an offender is far too high.  Beyond the cost of prosecution, the costs of incarcerating the offender far exceeds the low infringing $2500 threshold.  Based on California’s 2008-2009 Annual Costs to Incarcerate an Inmate in Prison, the average cost per inmate per year is about $47,000.[59]  Theoretically, for a three year sentence, the government would be paying over $140,000 of taxpayer money to incarcerate a non-violent criminal for a $2500 infringement.  Additionally, the non-violent criminal would now be exposed to the dangers and violence inherent in prison.[60]

V. CONCLUSION

       While these low threshold cases with fair use issues are typically not prosecuted,[61]charges are still filed.[62]  The statute has the ability to make criminals out of people that do not know their actions are illegal or believe that they are legal.  By raising the threshold of section 506(a)(1)(B) to at least $25,000, the statute would be better able to avoid prosecution of “innocent” infringers.  The other subsections of 506 would still allow for punishment of individuals selling infringing materials for personal financial gain and individuals distributing unpublished material prior to commercial releases (i.e. leaking music albums, movies, or books).  With these two other options available, raising the threshold would not make prosecution any more difficult. 

      Finally, “willfully” needs to be defined in the statute in accordance with the majority view.  One action should not be more or less culpable depending on the circuit where it is committed.  By defining “willfully” in the statute, all circuits would be in conformity and there would be no discrepancies between courts. Furthermore, if the purpose of the criminal copyright infringement statute is to educate, prevent, and deter, the public needs to know what is and what is not criminal.  For that reason, the definition of “willfully” is necessary to educate and assist in deterring future criminal infringement.

[1]Maureen O’Conner, Sarah Palin’s New Book: Leaked Excerpts, Gawker, (Nov. 17, 2010, 1:50 PM), http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TxlEfXyJDUMJ:gawker….

[2]NY Judge Orders Gawker To Pull Palin Book Pages, Associated Press, (Nov. 20, 2010),http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5giNUABDpwRGZATlokAAN5D….

[3]Id.

[4]Sarah Wheaton, Gawker Ordered to Remove Palin Book Excerpts, N.Y. Times, Nov. 20, 2010, 10:45 PM,http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/gawker-ordered-to-remov….

[5]Jeremy E. Peters & Julie Bosman, Palin’s Publisher and Gawker Settle Case, N.Y. Times, November 24, 2010,http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/25/business/media/25gawker.html?src=busln.

[6]See generally Pareene, Palin: Scared of Asians?, Gawker, (Dec. 4, 2009, 1:39 PM), http://gawker.com/5419113/palin-scared-of-asians; Foster Kamer, Are Sarah and Todd Palin Getting A Divorce?, Gawker, (Aug. 1, 2009),http://gawker.com/5327957/are-sarah-and-todd-palin-getting-a-divorce; John Cook, Please Turn the Governor of Alaska’s Family Into A Television Program. Thank You., Gawker, (Mar. 12, 2009, 11:13 AM),http://gawker.com/5168742/please-turn-the-governor-of-alaskas-family-int….

[7]See generally Diane L. Kilpatrick-Lee, Criminal Copyright Law: Preventing A Clear Danger To The U.S. Economy Or Clearly Preventing The Original Purpose Of Copyright Law?, 14 U. Balt. Intell. Prop. L.J. 87 (2005); Anthony Falzone, Diddy Could Save Sampling, Slate, (Nov. 2, 2007, 7:16 AM),http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2177238.

[8]17 U.S.C. § 506 (2008).

[9]Id.

[10]17 U.S.C. § 107 (1992).

[11]See generally Ting Ting Wu, The New Criminal Copyright Sanctions: A Toothless Tiger?, 39 IDEA 527 (1999).

[12]18 U.S.C. § 2319 (2008).

[13]17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)-(2) (2008).

[14]Id.

[15]See Daniel Newman, Mangmang Cai & Rebecca Heugstenberg, Intellectual Property Crimes, 44 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 693, 717 (2007).

[16]See id. at 718.

[17]§ 506(a)(3).

[18]See Brian P. Heneghan, The Net Act, Fair Use, and Willfulness – Is Congress Making A Scarecrow of the Law?, 1 J. High Tech. L. 27, 34 (2002).  Judge Learned Hand stated that willfulness is “an awful word!  It is one of the most troublesome words that I know.  If I were to have the index purged, ‘willful’ [sic] would lead the rest in spite of its being at the end of the alphabet.” Id. at n64.

[19]757 F. Supp. 1046 (1991).

[20]Id. at 1047.

[21]Id. at 1047-48.

[22]Id. at 1048.

[23]Id.

[24]Id.

[25]498 U.S. 192 (1991).

[26]Id. at 194.

[27]Id. at 195-97.

[28]Id. at 199-200.

[29]Id. at 200.

[30]Id. at 201.

[31]United States v. Moran, 757 F. Supp. 1046, 1049 (1991).

[32]Id.

[33]Id. at 1052.

[34]Kilpatrick-Lee, supra note 7, at 106.

[35]Newman, supra note 14, at 721.

[36]Heneghan, supra note 17, at 35-36.

[37]See infra Part III.

[38]17 U.S.C. § 107 (2007).

[39]Id.

[40]Id. §§ 107(1)-(4).

[41]Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 578 (1994).

[42]Campbell, 510 U.S. at 584.

[43]17 U.S.C. § 107(1) (2007).  See also Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 562 (1985) (“every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright”).

[44]See Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984).

[45]Time shifting is the act of recording a TV show on a VHS tape for later private viewing.

[46]Id. at 442-43.

[47]430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005).

[48]Id. at 890.

[49]See generally Michael S. Sawyer, Copyright: Note: Filters, Fair use & Feedback: User-Generated Content Principles and the DMCA, 24 Berkeley Tech, L.J. 363 (2009); Edward Lee, Warming Up To User-Generated Content, 2008 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1459 (2008).

[50]See generally Jeremy Scott, “Leave Them Kids Alone” A Proposed Fair Use Defense For Noncommercial P2P Sharing of Copyrighted Music Files, 3 Fla. Int’l U. L. Rev. 235 (2007).

[51]See Eric Spiegelman, Sarah Palin and Gawker to Debate Freedom and the Constitution, The Awl, (Nov. 22, 2010), http://www.theawl.com/2010/11/sarah-palin-and-gawker-to-debate-freedom-a….

[52]Heneghan, supra note 17, at 36.

[53]17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(B) (2008).

[54]Kilpatrick-Lee, supra note 7, at 117.

[55]18 U.S.C. § 2319(c)(2) (2008).

[56]Geraldine Scott Moohr, The Crime of Copyright Infringement: An Inquiry Based on Morality, Harm, and Criminal Theory, 83 B. U. L. Rev. 731, 748 (2003).

[57]Kilpatrick-Lee, supra note 7, at 118.

[58]The charges were dropped after holding the woman for two days.  SeeShanna Schwarze, ‘New Moon’ Taping May Put Woman In Prison, CNNEntertainment (Dec. 4, 2009, 6:28PM),http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/04/new.moon.arrest/; Amanda Bell, Charges Against Accused ‘The Twilight Saga: New Moon’ ‘Pirate’ Dropped, examiner.com (Dec. 11, 2009, 4:36PM), http://www.examiner.com/twilight-in-national/charges-against-accused-the… Jacqueline D. Lipton, Coypright’s Twilight Zone: Digital Copyright Lessons From The Vampire Blogosphere, 70 Md. L. Rev. 1, 38-42 (2010).

[59]California’s Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor, Legislative Analyst’s Office, California’s 2008-2009 Annual Costs to Incarcerate an Inmate in Prison(2009),http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatec….

[60]See Heneghan, supra note 17, at 39-43.

[61]Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Prosecuting Intellectual Property Crimes Manuel 67-68 (2001).

[62]See supra note 57.

© 2011 Charles F. Scott

6th Anti-Corruption and FCPA Compliance Conference Set for June 22-24, 2011 in Washington, DC

The National Law Review wants to bring your attention to the following upcoming event(s): 

Building on our past successful FCPA conference series, marcus evans invites you to attend the 6th Anti-Corruption & FCPA Compliance Conference in Washington, DC, June 22-24, 2011, co-located with the Life Sciences Strategies for Anti-Corruption and Compliance Conference.  The event will bring together Government officials and industry leaders in FCPA, Anti-Corruption and Compliance to share best practices, strategies and tools on executing, monitoring and auditing a strong and effective anti-corruption / FCPA compliance program.

Now more than ever organizations need to pay close attention to their anti-corruption compliance programs and ensure robust internalcontrols are in place especially in countries with high corruption to ensure their business transactions are compliant with the FCPA as well as  global anti-corruption laws.

Hear From Leading FCPA Compliance and Anti-Corruption Experts Including:

Jay G. Martin, Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer, Senior Deputy General Counsel, Baker Hughes

C. David Morris, Senior Counsel International, Northrop Grumman Corporation

Melissa Chia, Executive Director, Morgan Stanley Investment Management

Debra Kuper, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, AGCO

Stephen Donovan, Chief Counsel, Global Compliance, International Paper Company

Why You Should Attend

1. Learn how to embrace a global anti-corruption compliance program
2. Analyze recent regulatory updates and proposals
3. Understand best practices in effective due diligence and management of third parties
4. Discover ways to monitor and disclose FCPA violations
5. Gain insights on how to tackle upcoming regulatory changes and how to best implement updated policies and procedures into your organization
6. Identify possible violations by examining recent enforcement against companies for committing corrupt practices

With a one-track focus, the 6th Anti-Corruption & FCPA Compliance Conference is a highly intensive, content-driven event that includes case studies, presentations and panel discussions over two full days. This conference targets industry leaders from a variety of top industries in order to provide an intimate atmosphere for both the delegates and speakers.

This is not a trade show; our FCPA conference series is targeted at a focused group of senior level executives to maintain an intimate atmosphere for the delegates and speakers. Since we are not a vendor driven conference, the higher level focus allows delegates to network with their industry peers.

marcus evans has requested CLE accreditation from all appropriate states. marcus evans certifies that this conference has been pre approved for CLE credits by the Pennsylvania, California and West Virginia State continuining legal education authorities and also approved for New Jersey and Colorado CLE credit via reciprocity.

 For more information on this conference or to get a complete list of speakers, sessions or past attendees, visit http://www.marcusevansch.com/NLR_FCPA.

More Than Just An Algorithm: Reconciling The Necessity For Disaggregating The Business Method, With Bilski’s Abstract Test

The National Law Review would like to congratulate Andrew L. Schwartz of Hofstra Law School one of our Spring 2011 Student Legal Writing Contest Winners.  Andrew’s topic is the business method patent.  

INTRODUCTION

As the airplane’s utility spread to the public sector, the 1940’s witnessed the sky’s transformation into the new highway. Like any new frontier and innovation, there was a need for regulation and legal guidance. Fortunately, property law had covered the topic since the 18th century. Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos, whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell.[1]The Supreme Court however did not agree with such dated application.[2]The court reasoned that categorizing air travel with ground travel under current property law would be naive. The two categories possessed different interest and policy consideration. Unification of the two, under traditional property laws, would essentially defeat air travel’s value and purpose. Such application had “no place in the modern world”[3].  The court made it clear that new innovation required new regulation and new legal guidance. Instead of fitting innovation into the law, new laws are created to fit innovation.

To promote, and protect innovation, for years American inventors have relied on the system of intellectual property and the patent system. The patent system, a once humble and optimistic institution, has evolved far beyond its beginnings. When the last patent act was passed over a half a century ago, aspirations were high. The 1950’s saw an innovation boom that inspired some of the most integral foundations for modern technology.[4]  Proponents of the patent system promoted exposure and accessibility for innovation, while discouraging concealment and private use.[5] Assuming the excitement of the era, congress eagerly looked to protect “anything under the sun that is made by man”.[6] However with the eruption of financial and software innovation in recent years, one would be hard-pressed to find the 1950’s anything-and-everything sentiment in today’s patent office.

In the eyes of the patent office, financial and software innovation is commonly referred to as a business method.  Subject to 35 U.S.C §101 and classified under Class 705, a business method patent is “the generic class for apparatus and corresponding methods for performing data processing operations.”[7] Software is a set of logical instructions, intended for a computer, made to perform computations, comparisons and sequential steps in order to process and produce a desired output.[8]Financial innovation, centuries older than software, began as basic mathematical principles.[9] Contemporary financial innovation however, has grown to enormous complexities. Fashioned from a set of multifaceted mathematical algorithms, the innovations have become so advanced that it is near impossible to solve without the aid of a computer.[10] Essentially, in the law’s view, today’s financial innovation is software.[11]

The business method has conflated financial and software innovation under the association of complex algorithms. While under a legal lens software and financial algorithms are near inseparable, the makings and interests of their respective innovations are however quite different. For instance, a large internet corporation may attempt to patent an online shopping method for common consumers;[12] while a large financial firm may attempt to patent a system of asset pooling for large mutual funds.[13] From the components that build the algorithm, to the industries effected by the patents, it is difficult not to acknowledge the distinctions between the two scenarios. The current patent system however does not recognize such distinctions. In both scenarios the algorithms are to be evaluated as business method patents.

Because of the realistic distinctions between financial and software innovation, formulating a cohesive judicial policy for the business method would seem destitute. Patent litigation over the past forty years has been frustrated with judicial attempts to reconcile both financial and software innovations under the business method patent. The most recent efforts in the ongoing business method saga produced the Abstract test for patentability assessment. The Abstract test was created by the Supreme Court’s ruling Bilski v. Kappos.[14] While the test is still in its early stages of development, lower courts have been hard pressed to reconcile financial and software innovation under the business method using the Abstract test.[15]

History has produced an ambiguous interpretation of financial and software innovation that fails to fit the enthusiastic “anything under the sun” patent system of the 1950’s. It is clear that the development of financial and software innovation has outgrown the traditional business method classification. The business method has “no place in the modern world”[16] and needs categorical disaggregation among financial and software innovation. Disaggregation would not only better serve the time and principles that each innovation represents, but simplify the Abstract test while preserving its purpose.

This article will examine the necessity for the disaggregation of the business method.  The first section will evaluate the judicial history and evolution of the business method leading up to the Bilski decision. The second section will discuss the Bilski decision and the Abstract test. The third section will contemplate the current future of the Abstract tests. The last section of the article will discuss how the business method and the Abstract test can be clarified in disaggregating the business method into financial and software innovation.

I.  HISTORY: THE GUIDEPOSTS: 1972-2008

The history of contemporary algorithmic innovation began in the 1970’s when the Supreme Court twice considered business method patents. Both decisions held the innovations unpatenable.  The first decision, Gottschalk v. Benson, was decided in 1972.[17]The Supreme Court considered whether algorithmic based software for converting binary code was  patentable. In a six justice majority, the court held the method unpatenable, unless “in connection with a digital computer”, because it “would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself”.[18]The decision confirmed that algorithms, made akin to software by the court, standing alone, were unpatenable subject matter.  [19]

While algorithms alone were unpatenable, the question existed of whether bringing a physical component into the application would preclude a patentability.  Six years after Benson, the Supreme Court returned to the business method issue and addressed such question. InParker v. Flook, the Supreme Court considered whether an algorithmic based method for triggering an alarm system, used to signal irregular conditions in a catalytic conversion process, was patentable.[20]In a seven justice majority, the Court held the innovation unpatenable. Although the alarms inclusion meant the innovation wasn’t wholly algorithmically based, the majority realized the only novel element in Flook’s innovation was the algorithm itself.[21]  It would have appeared that the patent system’s hole had been filled. The courts would not be fooled by crafty lawyering and mirrors attempting to hide an algorithm amongst physical components. After Benson and Flook, it appeared software and algorithms, were to be treated like any other mathematical formula, unpatenable.

Hopes of patenting an algorithm under the business method reemerged only four years later in the Supreme Court case Diamond v. Diehr.[22]Once again an application was presented, part physical, part algorithm. The invention used the Arrhenius Equation to calculate the operation timing on a physical rubber press. As the rubber curing process stood well known in the industry, clearly the only new innovation in the patent application was the algorithm itself.[23]However, in a five justice majority, the application was deemed acceptable. Arguably marking the first time an application containing software was considered statutorily patentable. Although the rulings in Benson and Flook were not overruled by the Diehr decision, it appeared that the physical component ambiguities after Benson had not truly been resolved.

After Diehr, the patent system became a virtual wild west. Floods of “ridiculous and truly absurd” business method applicants were submitted to the patent office.[24]The era was epitomized with a 1994 application from the software titan IBM.[25]The invention set out a group algorithms loaded onto a physical readable storage device. The physical component that was able to pass muster under Benson and Flook, a floppy disk. The application’s approval gained such recognition that it was even endowed its own business method idiom, a Beauregard claim.[26]After dilution of the Flook’s unpatenable ruling, the despondent future of the business method patent herald through the financial and software communities.[27]

The circular timeline of judicial clarification surfaced once again in 1998 with the case of State Street v. Signature Financial Group.[28]The court found Signature Financial’s financial purposed algorithm, one that moved assets into mutual funds to take advantage of tax benefits, to be patentable.   The State Street holding marked two significant chapters in business method history. The first was the court’s explicit recognition of the business method patent.[29]The court found that such a category was no less patentable than any other subject matter under Section 101. State Street’s judicial endorsement of the business method patent, once again, propagated a flood of financial and software patent applications.[30]The second major significance of the State Street decision was in the court’s clarification of business method eligibility. The court held that the new test for eligibility was to be the Useful, Concrete and Tangible Result test.  Although the test could hardly be awarded a bright line denomination, it marked the first judicial canon to reconcile Benson, Flook and Diehr. However, despite the court’s best efforts, the test still granted several questionable patents approval, many lacking any hint of a physical component.[31]

II. CREATION OF THE ABSTRACT TEST: IN RE BILSKI & BILSKI V. KAPPOS

Ten years after the State Street decision, judicial clarification poignantly returned to the Federal Court of Appeals. Finding an opportunity to reevaluate its holding in State Street and its significances over the past ten years, the court, sitting en banc, adjudicated In Re Bilski.[32]The court’s holding not only rejected State Street’s Useful, Concrete and Tangible Result test that had reigned supreme for ten years, but went as far to replace it with a new test for business method eligibility. The new test, the Machine-or-Transformation test, held that a business method patent was patentable subject matter if it 1) was applied by use of a machine, or else 2) transforms an article from one thing or state to another. Was the court’s new test a judicial endorsement of the Beauregard claim, or was it carefully worded to avoid the question of patentability with an additional physical component?  It would have appeared that, once again, the courts had clarified one complication, while subsequently creating another.

The thematic clarification of business method decisions past came to one of its most pivotal moments in 2009 when the Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari for Bilski’s appeal.[33]From Silicon Valley to Wall Street, software and financial innovators alike held their breath awaiting the decision. Mounting rumors held that the court would possibly eliminate the business method patent altogether.[34]While some justices of the dissent agreed with the business method’s eradication, the majority felt otherwise.[35]Delivered by Justice Kennedy, the majority opined, that business methods are indeed patentable; Bilski’s application however was not.

Bilski had developed a hedging algorithm to eliminate volatility in consumer energy costs. Using the Monte Carlo method and historical weather data, energy prices would be hedged with weather futures to lock in a more stable and predictable energy bill. The algorithm’s complexities went far beyond any pen and paper, and the necessity for a computer was evident. Although there was an implied necessity for a physical component (a computer), the majority still found the algorithm unpatenable. The majority reasoned that Bilski’s innovation was an abstract idea. Reiterating established ‘precedent’, as if such a rule were ostensibly written and obvious already, the court reasoned that business method patents are limited by “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas”.[36]The Machine-or-Transformation test developed in In Re Bilski was no longer to be a determinative test in patentability, but rather a “useful and important clue” to the inclusive Abstract test.[37]  The court continued to disregard the continuance of  other tests that have marked business method history through the years, declaring that “nothing in today’s opinion should be read as endorsing the Federal Circuit’s past interpretations of § 101. See, e.g., State Street.”[38]And in one sentence ten years of State Street and its progeny were erased.

The Bilski Supreme Court failed to clarify a definition of their Abstract test, both in its criteria’s inclusions and omissions. The court rather left such task of interpretation to the lower courts in coming years, advising them on a case by case basis to return to the legal “guideposts”[39]of Benson, Flook, and Diehr. Justice Potter’s illustrious commentary rang ever present, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it”.[40] The business method was, once again, afflicted with yet another ambiguous interpretation.

III.  THE  CURRENT FUTURE OF THE BUSINESS METHOD

In patent applications to come, federal courts are left with the assignment of interpretation mandated by the powers above. Courts now sit in a post-Bilski era with the future of the business method patent in their discretion. While courts have taken time to acknowledge the inconclusiveness of the Bilski decision[41], others have used the opportunity to expand its meaning. In a recent decision by the Federal Court of Appeals, the eligibility of algorithms specifically was discussed.[42]Not surprisingly opting to use the ‘guidepost’ of Diehr, the court held that “algorithms and formulas, even though admittedly a significant part of the claimed combination, do not bring this invention even close to abstractness that would override the statutory categories and context”.[43]Even the most confident and charitable views of the Bilski decision and its progeny echo a notice of future complications, some which have already begun to surface. [44]

Verified by a circular history blemished with flaws, mistakes, and corrections, the current business method system’s stability is noticeably far from safe.  While financial and software innovation has slowly, over the years, conjoined in the eyes of the court under the business method, the culture and society of their respective subscribers is quickly diverging. Such policy considerations, which have all but been neglected in past business method decisions, must be recognized before history reprises itself.

In efforts of slowing the arbitrary attachment of physical components (Beauregard claims), the Supreme Court in Bilski retained the possibility that a purely intangible may gain patentability.[45]However, in a digital age, it is almost inherent that financial and software innovation will rely on a physical element, likely a computer. Even under the court’s pragmatic recognition of the times, Bilski’s Abstract test is still extremely comprehensive. Susceptible to a wide array of differing interpretations, in coming years the Abstract test is capable of rooting itself into case law far beyond its intended purpose, possibly precluding any software or financial innovation entirely. To better limit the scope to which the Abstract test reaches, its application should be tested to separate confines, software and financial innovation. The question ‘what is an abstract business method’ is extremely different than ‘what is abstract financial innovation’ and ‘what is abstract software innovation’. Because software and financial innovations are inherently different, from their components to the industries they affect, the Abstract test will take on different considerations when applied to each individually.

IV.  DISAGGREGATION: A SOLUTION

A.  FINANCIAL ABSTRACT TEST

The assertion that all mathematical formulas are made of components in existence, workings of nature that have yet to be discovered, is a naive assertion in light of contemporary financial innovation.[46]The quintessential example for the unpatentability of mathematical formulas is Einstein’s relativity formula.[47]Einstein did not invent the formula; he simply codified and arranged components of nature in an assignable formula. Mass, energy, and the speed of light all existed in nature eons before Einstein was even born. Although contemporary financial innovations are based in principles of mathematics, the components and interactions of the numbers in the algorithm can hardly be described as derivatives of nature.

Far from nature, financial innovations operate solely on man-made financial markets. The extent of financial innovation is limited to the markets and can only exclusively function on this man-made medium.[48]For example, Bilski’s use of weather futures in his algorithm would not have even been possible during the time of Diehr, Benson or Flook because weather futures existence has only been recognized on the market since 1996.[49]If the market or weather futures ceased to exist tomorrow, Einstein’s relativity formula would certainly still be comprehensible, Bilski’s algorithm would not.

Because market components and financial algorithms are not of nature, does not mean they cannot be natural relative to the market and its culture. Maintaining the ability to freely use the public utilities and its components has always been an essential consideration in patentability.[50]  This is where the Abstract test in financial innovation can differentiate itself from the Abstract test in software innovation. If a patent were to impede and dominate a natural market component from its intended purpose and use, then such patent would likely fail the Abstract test. The Supreme Court toiled with such reasoning but ultimately carried it in an unusual direction.

Bound to traditional business method policy considerations of both financial and software innovation, and unable to reflect financial market specifics, the Bilski court was forced to reason broadly. The court stated that Bilski sought to patent “the concept of hedging risk…hedging is a fundamental economic practice…allowing petitioners to patent risk hedging would pre-empt use of this approach in all fields, and would effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea”.[51]  Application of the court’s wide comprehensive view on any patent will ultimately render it an abstract idea. Can a machine for bending metal be unpatenable because bending is fundamental physical practice?[52]Instead of looking to whether patenting Bilski’s algorithm would have created a monopoly over a natural market strategy, the court should have looked to whether patenting Bilski’s algorithm would have created a monopoly over a natural market component. If Bilski’s algorithm positioned itself to inhibit the public use of weather futures, then the Abstract test would have denied patentability. If Bilski’s algorithm used weather futures in such a way that was useful, novel and non-obvious, while still allowing for its natural use in the market, then the Abstract test would have allowed patentability. Reducing any algorithm to its most basic functions will appear as attempts at privatization of a public utility and fail the Abstract test. Only when the court is given range to apply the Abstract test to the specifics at hand (i.e. financial innovation specifically) can it properly operate.

With such ambiguous decisions as Bilski, financial innovation in private industry has been strained. Over the past years financial innovation has given rise to high frequency, black box and the white box trading.[53]All three concepts revolve around the use of an algorithms operating millisecond market transactions, consistently adjusting to market reactions. While the extent of high frequency trading is generally unknown, the same cannot be said for its presence.[54]Uncertainties in the patent system’s protection have driven financial innovators into hiding. For fear of competitor plagiarism, private firms using algorithms are seldom to share their innovations with the world.[55]Because of a lack of protection, the utility and public benefit of some of these innovations may never be known. Consider the Black-Scholes model, the base for many contemporary algorithms, and arguably one of the most provocative financial innovations of the past century.[56]Once used as a secret investing tool, the algorithm’s utility now goes far beyond the financial sector (ironically one alternative use is in patent valuation[57]). Failing to provide a stronger outline to patentable criteria will only push innovators further into hiding, inhibiting any progress in financial innovation.

The Abstract test applied separately to financial innovation would help facilitate reassurance in the patent system. The Abstract test for financial innovation would be tried against the interests of the market and private industry. Like any public domain, the market invites innovation as long as it does not inhibit the public’s use.[58]A patent application attempting to corner off a common public utility would be abstract. In the private industry’s interest, any application that would potentially destroy the opportunity for progress would be abstract. Evaluating abstractness in financial innovation separately would suit the patent system and innovation in a way the traditional business method system could not.

B.  SOFTWARE ABSTRACT TEST

The struggle between anti-software patent movements and patent proponents has grown significantly as more and more innovations stem from the digital age.[59]While the Bilski decision has almost solidified software as patentable, the Abstract test may serve as an elementary compromise when applied to software innovation separately.

Unlike its financial counterpart, software algorithms do not operate on a public medium such as the market. Software is bound to the rules and procedures of a given programming language. Languages are constantly being created, evolving and improving. The Java language, currently the most popular programming language, was only released in 1995 with its most recent release February 15th 2011.[60]Because the medium on which software innovation operates is moving at an enormously high rate (significantly more so than financial innovation) the innovation itself must move just as fast.

Like its financial counterpart, software also has its own natural components. The Abstract test applied to software would evaluate a patent and its implications under the software culture. If the patent would preclude a natural software component, the Abstract test would reject patentability. However, because of the speed of software evolution, what is regarded as innovation today may easily be common industry practice tomorrow. As patents protection lasts for twenty years, the test for abstractness must possess a sense of foresight. An overly lenient application of the Abstract test in software innovation would inhibit further innovation in later years rather than facilitate it. Consider a software’s spell checker component. The spell checker is only forty years old, but an almost natural component in any contemporary software algorithm.[61]Patenting such component would certainly be abstract and inhibit further innovation. Only when the use of the natural component in software innovation is useful, novel and non-obvious, with a tremendous amount of creativity, can the Abstract test allow patentability.[62]Because of the fluid environment that software innovation operates in, the threshold for abstractness would be significantly lower than financial innovation. This consideration only further proves the need for disaggregation.

Unlike financial innovation, software innovation is not as easily kept secret. The public market acts as a blanket for financial innovations used by traders, with a petty possibility of reverse engineering. The private software industry however, serves no protection to software innovation as it is much more readily reversed engineered and plagiarized. [63] This puts software innovators at a disadvantage, as hiding their innovation is not even an option. Without secrecy as an alternative, the patent system must work more readily to incentivize innovation without slowing it down. On the same token because software innovations are plainly exposed, it pushes innovators to persistently improve so that they may claim the alpha position amongst competitors.

CONCLUSION

While Bilski’s Abstract test is far from definitive criteria, it is th  e hand that has been dealt. Application of the Abstract test to software and financial innovations separately alleviates a large amount of ambiguity. Disaggregating the business method and applying the Abstract test separately allows for different considerations and thresholds for each innovation.  Attention to the components and the industry of the individual innovations restores the patent system to its intended purpose, which the traditional business method has failed to do. With such differences, aggregating software and financial innovation under the business method is impractical. The traditional business method truly has “no place in the modern world”.[64]

[1]John G. Sprankling, Owning the Center of the Earth, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 979, 980 (2008).

[2]United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 261, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 1065, 90 L. Ed. 1206 (1946).

[3]Id. at 261.

[4]Inventions include: 1951- VTR Video Tape Recorder, 1954-Solar Cell, 1955-Fiber Optics, 1959-Microchip. Cavendish, Marshall, Inventors and Inventions 372-73 (2nd ed. 2007).

[5]Edward C. Walterscheid, Within the Limits of the Constitutional Grant: Constitutional Limitations on the Patent Power, 9 J. Intell. Prop. L. 291, 300 (2002).

[6]The Supreme Court held that Congress chose very expansive language in the patent statute, 35 U.S.C. §101, such that “anything under the sun that is made by man” is patentable subject matter. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 100 S. Ct. 2204, 65 L. Ed. 2d 144 (1980).

[7]35 U.S.C.A. § 101 (2010).

[8]Chittenden Trust Co. v. King, 143 Vt. 271, 272, 465 A.2d 1100, 1100 (1983).

[9]The first financial patent was issued on March 19, 1799, for a method for “Detecting Counterfeit Notes.” State Street: Business Method Patents Can They Be A Boardwalk Address?, 688 PLI/Pat 455 , 471 (2002).

[10]William Krause, Sweeping the E-Commerce Patent Minefield: The Need for A Workable Business Method Exception, 24 Seattle U. L. Rev. 79, 101 (2000).

[11]Id.

[12]Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 73 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (W.D. Wash. 1999) vacated, 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

[13]State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, Inc, 149 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998) abrogated by In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

[14]Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792 (2010).

[15]“our focus on our muddy, conflicting, and overly formulaic rules.” Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 2010-1025, 2011 WL 179768 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2011).[16]Causby, supra note 2.

[17]Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 93 S. Ct. 253, 34 L. Ed. 2d 273 (1972).

[18]Id. at 72.

[19]Id.

[20]Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1978).

[21]“Respondent’s application simply provides a new and presumably better method for calculating alarm limit.” Id. at 595.

[22]Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 101 S. Ct. 1048, 67 L. Ed. 2d 155 (1981).

[23]“There is no suggestion that there is anything novel in the instrumentation of the mold, in actuating a timer when the press is closed, or in automatically opening the press when the computed time expires.” Id. at 209.

[24]In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2008) aff’d but criticized sub nom. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792 (U.S. 2010).

[25]In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

[26]Electronic and Software Patents: Crafting The Claims, 909 PLI/Pat 979, 909 PLI/Pat 979 , 1000 (2005).

[27]“it is clear after Flook that the board’s conclusion that patent protection is proscribed for all inventions “algorithmic in character” is overbroad and erroneous.” Application of Johnson, 589 F.2d 1070, 1075 (C.C.P.A. 1978).

[28]State St. Bank  supra note 13.

[29]Id.

[30]Stobbs, Gregory A., Business method patents 17,(2002).

[31]Amazon.com, Inc, supra note 12.

[32]In Re Bilski, supra note 24.

[33]Bilski, supra note 14.

[34]Ryan Paul, SCOTUS to hear Bilski case, may be huge for software patents,June 2, 2009, http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/scotus-to-hear-bilski-ma….

[35]Bilski, supra note 14.

[36]Id.  at 3321.

[37]Id.

[38]Id. at 3321.

[39]Id.

[40]Jacobellis v. State of Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 196, 84 S. Ct. 1676, 1682, 12 L. Ed. 2d 793 (1964).

[41]Arlington Indus.,supra note 15.

[42]Research Corp. Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

[43]Id.

[44] “I come from the camp that anything is patentable if you put enough money behind it, but what you might just get at the end of the day is something that won’t hold up in court. Bilski is a great example that no one really understands where patent law should head or the basics of patent decisions.” Keyson, Lauren, NYTECH.org Ecamines Software and Financial Patents, Jan. 24, 2011, http://nyconvergence.com/2011/01/nytech-org-examines-software-and-financial-patents.html

[45]Bilski, supra note 14.

[46]Durham, Alan L., Patent Law Essentials: A Concise Guide¸24(2004).

[47] Diehr supra note 22.

[48]Smith, Mark B., A History Of The Global Stock Market: From Ancient Rome To Silicon Valley(2004).

[49]Jewson, Stephen, Brix, Anders, Weather Derivative Valuation: The Meteorological, Statistical, Financial And Mathematical Foundations(2005).

[50]“patents shall not remove knowledge from the public domain or restrict free access to knowledge already available to the public.” Efthimios Parasidis, A Uniform Framework for Patent Eligibility, 85 Tul. L. Rev. 323, 330 (2010).

[51]Bilski, supra note 14.

[52]U.S. Patent No. 4356716 (issued Nov.  2, 1982).

[53]Citadel Inv. Group, LLC v. Teza Technologies LLC, 398 Ill. App. 3d 724, 725, 924 N.E.2d 95, 97 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) appeal denied, 236 Ill. 2d 551, 932 N.E.2d 1028 (2010).

[54]Jeremy Grant, ECB Warns of High Speed Trading Risks, Feb. 24, 2011, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e23ddc24-4044-11e0-9140-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1EwJH4xaz.

[55]Goldman counsel asked to seal courtroom during disclosure of trading practices. United States v. Aleynikov, 737 F. Supp. 2d 173, 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

[56]Geisst, Charles R,Encyclopedia Of American Business History (Vol. 2 2006).

[57]Berman, Bruce M., From ideas to assets: investing wisely in intellectual property 532 (2002).

[58]A Uniform Framework for Patent Eligibilitysupra note 48.

[59]Paul Krill, Red Hat, Google Challenge Software Patents, Feb. 3, 2011, http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/020311-red-hat-google-challenge-software.html?hpg1=bn.

[60]TIOBE SOFTWARE, TIOBE Programming Community Index, Feb. 2011, http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html.

[61]Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 158 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1020 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

[62]McIntyre v. Double-A Music Corp., 179 F. Supp. 160, 161 (S.D. Cal. 1959).

[63]Davidson & Associates v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630, 639 (8th Cir. 2005)

[64]Causby, supra note 2.

© 2011, Andrew L. Schwartz