000			10987nam a2200193Ia 4500
003			OSt
005			20251125112504.0
008			210518s2011 xx 000 0 und d
040			_cnls
100			_aNithyananda K.V
245			_aA Study on the Patentability of Financial Innovations in India
260			_aBangalore _bNLSIU _c2011
300			_a624p
505			_aTable of Contents Chapter – 1: Introduction Introduction; Financial Innovations and the Patent Regime; Research inquiry and objectives; Scope of the study; Methodology; Sources of data; Techniques of Data Collection; Data Analysis; Limitations of the Study; Chapterization; Chapter – 2: Financial Innovation; Introduction; Financial Engineering; Financial System; Financial Innovation; Financial innovations ecosystem; Features of financial services; Nature of Financial Innovations; Industry responses on the financial innovation scenario in India; Categories of Financial Innovations; Analysis of the categories of financial innovation; Sources of Financial Innovations and rationale for such innovative activities; Motivations for Financial Innovations; Industry responses on motivations for financial innovation in India; Other aspects about financial innovations; Financial Engineer as an Inventor; Roles assumed by the Financial Engineer; Tools of Financial Engineer; Financial Engineering Team; Chapter – 3: Protecting Financial Innovations; Introduction; Need for protecting financial innovations; Protecting financial innovations; Components of financial innovation and protection; Alternative modes of protecting financial innovations; First-Mover Advantage; Tacit Knowledge and Trade Secret; Reputational Advantage; Copyright Advantage; Trademark Advantage; Patents Advantage; Sample Financial Patent granted in the US; Industry Response on protecting financial innovations in India; Summary; Chapter – 4: Political Economy of Patenting Financial Innovations; Introduction; Part 1; Social Impact of the Financial Innovation; Introductory Remarks; Measuring Social Impact of financial innovations; Concluding remarks; Part 2; Debate on the Patenting of Financial Innovations; Introductory Remarks; Section 1; Rationale for Patents; The Classical Approach to Patent Protection; The Medieval Approach to the grant of patent rights; The Modem Arguments for Patent Protection to financial innovations; Summary and Conclusion; Section 2: Debate on the Need for Patenting Financial Innovations; Introduction; Model adapted for the debate; Factors considered for the debate; 1 Time taken for innovation ; 2 Investment in research and development; 3 Technological Risk; 4 Replication Risk; 5 Public funding; 6 Availability of alternative modes of protection ; 7 Importance / value of disclosure; 8 Network Effects ; 9 Clarity of Rights and Due Diligence Costs; 10 Leveraging / Misuse Potential / Anticompetitive symptoms; 11 Financial Strength of the Inventor / Investor ; 12 Cumulativeness of Innovation; 13 Effectiveness of Licensing Institutions; 14 Other Abuse Problems ; Summary of the comparative study of biotechnology sector and financial sector ; Findings, Observations and Conclusions of Part 2 of the Chapter; Part 3 - Social Impact of patenting financial innovations in India ; Introductory Remarks; Patent System in India; Social Impact of granting patent protection to financial innovations; Concluding Remarks; Conclusion to the Chapter; Chapter – 5: Legal Position on Patenting Financial Innovations in the US; Introduction; Legal Position in the US; History of Patentability of Financial Innovations; I Pre-Gottschalk Phase; 1 Business Method Patents Prior to Hotel Security Case; a Early Beginnings; b [1854] O'Reilly vs Morse - The Telegraph Case; c [1867) Munson vs The Mayor, Etc, of New York; d [1874] Rubber Tip Pencil Company vs Howard; e [1877) Cochrane vs Deener ; f [1881] Waring vs Johnson; g [1881] Dugan vs Gregg ; h [1881] Tilghman vs Proctor ; i [1892] Thomson vs Citizens' National Bank of Fargo; j [1893] United States Credit System Co vs American Credit Indemnity Co; k [1894] Johnson et al vs Johnston ; 1 [1894] Benjamin Menu Card Company vs Rand, McNally & Company; m [1898] Safeguard Account Co vs Wellington ; n [1903] Hocke vs New York Central & Hartford Railroad Company; 2 [1908] Hotel Security Checking Company vs Lorraine Company; Reasoning of the court; " Art" under Hotel Security; "Business Method" under Hotel Security; Synthesis; Analysis and Interpretation of Hotel Security Case; 3 Business Method Patents Post Hotel Security Case; a [1910] Berardini vs Tocci; b [1911] Rand McNally & Company vs Exchange Scrip-Book Company; c [1913] Cincinnati Traction vs Pope; d [1930] American Fruit Growers, Inc vs Brogdex Company; e [1934] In re Wait; f [1939] MacKay Radio & Telegraph Co vs Radio Corporation of America; g [1942] In re Patton; h [1948] Funk Brothers vs Kalo Company; i [1949] Loew's Drive-in Theatres, Inc vs Park-in Theatres, Inc; j [1965] In re Wiechers; k [1968) In re Howard; 1 [1972) In re Waldbaum; 4 Afterthoughts on Pre-Gottschalk Phase; II Gottschalk to State Street Phase; 1 [1972] Gottschalk vs Benson; Invention; Decision in Gottschalk vs Benson; Analysis of Gottschalk vs Benson; 2 Cases after Gottschalk vs Benson; a [1973) In re Fox; b [1974) In re Johnston; c [1976) In re Chatfield; d [1977) In re Deutsch; e [1978) Parker vs Flook ; f [1979] In re Maucorps; g [1980) Diamond vs Chakrabarty ; h [1981] Diamond vs Diehr; i Freeman-W alter-Abele Test ; j [1983] Paine, Webber vs Merrill Lynch ; k [1988] Ex parte Murray; l [1989] In re Grams; m [1992] Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc vs Corazonix Corp; n [1994] In re Schrader ; 3 [1994] En banc decision in In re Alappat; Background; Technology in Alappat ; Decision in Alappat ; Analyzing In re Alappat ; 4 Afterthoughts on Gottschalk to State Street Bank Phase; III State Street Bank and later Phase; 1 [1998] State Street Bank vs Signature Financial; Background ; Invention and Technology; Decision in the State Street Bank; Analysis of State Street Bank ; 2 Cases after State Street Bank; a [1999] A T & T Corp vs Excel Communications, Inc ; b [2001] Amazoncom vs Barnesandnoblecom; c [2002] Marketel International, Inc vs Pricelinecom, Inc ; d [2002] Keen, Inc vs InfoRocketcom, Inc ; e [2004] Ex parte Lundgren; f [2006] LabCorp vs Metabolite ; g [2006] Ex Parte Bilski; h [2007] Netflix vs Blockbuster ; i [2007] In re Comiskey; j [2007] In re Nuijten; k [2008] In re Bilski; 1 [2010] Bilski vs Kappos; m Post Bilski Phase; Summary of the Legal Position in the US; Chapter – 6: Legal Position on Patenting Financial Innovations in Europe; Introduction and Background; What can be patented in Europe; Invention; Industrial application; Novelty; Inventive Step; Position of Mathematical algorithm; Position of Business Method Patents; Position of Computer Software Programs; Historical Development of Jurisprudence in Europe; a [1987] Vicom! Computer-Related Invention; b [1988] Koch and Sterzel! X-ray Apparatus case; c [1989] Merrill Lynch's Application! Automated Securities Trading System; d [1990] IBM's Invention! Word Processing - Computer related Invention; e [1990] IBM's Invention! Document Abstracting and Retrieving; f [1991] Gale's Invention / New method of Calculation; g [1993] IBM's Invention / Card Reading System; h [1995] Sohei's Invention / General-purpose Management System; i [1995] Pettersson's Invention / QueuMg System; j [1998] IBM's Invention / External Interface Simulation; k [2001] AT&T's Invention / Computer System; 1 [2001] Pension Benefit System Partnership; m [2003] Comvik's Invention / Two identities; ; n [2004] Hitachi's Invention / Auction Method; o [2005] Catalina's Invention / Discount Certificates; p [2005] Online Resources' Invention / Banking Services; q [2006] Duns Licensing Associates' Invention / Estimating Sales Activity; r [2006] MAN's Invention / Provision of Product Specific Data; s [2006] ED Pool's Invention / International Transaction; t [2007] Pitney Bowes' Invention / Undeliverable Mail; u [2007] King's Invention / Loan System; v [2008] Ricoh's Invention / Order Management; Analysis of the European Position on the Patentability of Financial Innovations Determining Technical Character; Determining inventive step; Skilled Person; Determining Non-obviousness of an invention Conclusion to the chapter Chapter – 7: A Look at the Financial Innovation related patent applications in the US and Europe; Introduction; Data Selection; Analysis; Chapter – 8: Legal Position on Patenting Financial Innovations in Other International Jurisdictions; Introduction; Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; Japan; Malaysia; Mexico; Singapore; South Africa; South Korea; Taiwan; Conclusion; Chapter – 9: Legal Position on Patenting Financial Innovations as per TRIPS Agreement Position of TRIPS; Technical invention as the subject of Patent Protection; Invention; Technicality; Patent Types; Product Patents; Process Patents; Implications of TRIPS agreement on certain kinds of inventions; Discoveries; Computer Software; Exclusion from Patentability on the grounds of Public Interest; Ordre Public; Protection of Morality; Conclusion Chapter – 10: Legal Position on Patenting Financial Innovations in India; Introduction; What can be patented in India?; Utility; Novelty; Obviousness; Specification; Non-Patentable Inventions; Patents for Business Methods, Mathematical Algorithms and Computer Programs; Introduction and Evolution; Computer Software Patents in India; Conclusion; Analysis of the patents granted for financial innovations in India; Summary of the data analysis; Chapter -11: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations; Summary; Conclusions and Recommendations; Scope for future research; Appendix; Appendix 1 - Strategic Framework for protecting financial innovations; Appendix 2 - Questionnaire used to collect the Primary Data; Appendix 3 - List of financial innovations carried out in the western world; Appendix 4 - Patent applications filed with the IPO; References;
520			_aFinancial Innovation - Patenting _aFinancial Innovation - Protection _aPatenting Financial Innovation - Social Impact - India
700			_aDr. T Ramakrishna - Guide
856			_uhttps://dans.nls.ac.in/handle/123456789/508
942			_2ddc _cTH
999			_c111205 _d111205