BUSINESS
METHOD PATENTS, PHARMING & PHISHING
June 22, 2005
There may
have been a Dot com bubble, but there certainly is also an Internet juggernaut.
E-commerce continues to grow dramatically. (Obviously we have all heard of
Google and eBay.) This growth can be confirmed in the published business news.
For example, VeriSign has reported its business activity increased over 30% in
the last year.
E-commerce continues to grow faster than the law and regulatory schemes intended
impose order. It is also growing in the face of the real threat of consumer
identity theft. The theft of credit card and identity information from
Choicepoint, Lexis Nexis and now CardSystem Solutions has been well reported.
(There is an excellent article by Tom Zeller in the June 21, 2005 New York Times
entitled "Black Market in Stolen Credit Card Data Thrives on Internet".
The article describes the operation of this market and the activity of entities
named "Zo0mer" and "Zer0".
The rights and duties arising from the electronic transmission
and storage of personal data are far from clear or settled. The fraud schemes
are creating a new vocabulary, e.g., phishing, spoofing and pharming.
Criminal investigations, e.g. Operation Firewall, have had minimal impact.
This
growth is also evident in patent prosecution. Cisco Systems recently
announced filing patent applications for business method software and technology
intended to prevent pharming. In view of the billions in reported annual
losses, this technology could be valuable property. However, there are continued delays in
the USPTO examination of business method patent applications, a very large
percentage pertaining to on line or electronic communication. The delays in
obtaining a first office action from the USPTO in this art can exceed the 3 year
model the Patent Office has established for the entire patent prosecution
process.
Part of
the delay is attributed to the difficulty of providing a skilled and proper
examination of applications dealing with this esoteric and evolving art The
recent changes proposed for USPTO examination may reflect an acknowledgement by
the regulators that the industry can do a better job in weeding obviousness out
from novelty than can the examiners. For example reference the
Proposed Patent
Opposition Procedure. These changes are intended to speed the
patenting process and reduce infringement litigation and costs. Included
in the benefits will be increasing the incentives for bringing fraud preventive
technology to the market.
|