You’ll have to wait to find out.
In 1997 a couple guys including one named Bilski applied for a patent on a particular method of hedging financial risk. In May 2008 the US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Bilski’s claim for various reasons, including the partial rejection of a previous test of patentability that asked if a process produced “a useful, concrete, and tangible result.” Apparently many other method patents rely to some degree on that particular test. The Supreme Court heard the case in November but has yet to issue a decision. Suspense is in the air.
What are method or process patents, you may ask? It would seem that the two terms are largely interchangeable. When they are distinct, a process usually refers to something manufactured (like creating aluminum by electrolysis), and a method tends to be a particular way of using existing tools (such as one-click ordering).
I can’t say that patent law thrills me. Beyond the basic principles, the legal wranglings and only vaguely intuitive arguments around this topic give me a headache.
