This is the VOA Special English Economics Report.
这里是美国之音慢速英语经济报道。

Recently, the United States Supreme Court decided a case on the property rights of inventors. The question was whether a business method is enough of an invention to receive a patent. Patents are a form of intellectual property. They give legal protections to individuals and companies against the copying of their inventions.
最近，美国最高法院就一件发明者的知识产权案件作出判决，该案件的焦点是商业方法发明是否能够申请专利。专利是知识产权的一种形式，它为个人和公司防止他人抄袭其发明提供法律保护。

Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw wanted to patent a method to let traders protect against the risk of price changes in energy markets. The United States Patent and Trademark Office said no.
伯纳德·比尔斯基（Bernard Bilski）和兰德·沃索(Rand Warsaw)希望将一种保护交易者免受能源市场价格变化风险的方法注册专利，美国专利和商标局拒绝了这项申请。

So the inventors went to court. Again they were told no. Finally, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Last month, all nine justices said no.
因此，发明人走上法庭，却再次被拒绝。官司最终一路打到了最高法院。上个月，最高法院的所有9名法官也再次予以拒绝。

But they only said no to a patent in this case. Patent lawyer Meredith Martin Addy in Chicago explains that the court ruled narrowly.
但他们只是拒绝了该案件中的专利申请。芝加哥专利律师梅雷迪斯·马丁·阿迪解释说，法院的裁决很严格。

MEREDITH MARTIN ADDY: "The Supreme Court held that there is no categorical rule denying patent protection for business method patents."
阿迪：“最高法院坚称，没有明确法规拒绝商业方法专利的专利保护。”

When patent laws were first developed, most patents were for machines. But since the late nineteen nineties, inventors of business methods and processes have increasingly sought patent protection.
当最初制定专利法时，大多数都是机器专利。但20世纪90年代末以来，商业方法和流程发明人正日益寻求专利保护。 

Technology companies, especially software makers, watched the case closely. They were concerned that the Supreme Court would require a test of some kind that could limit what can be patented.
科技企业，尤其是软件厂商都密切关注该案件。他们担心最高法院可能要求进行某种测试，从而限制专利申请的类型。

In its ruling, the court decided against the patent only because the idea was too abstract. Law professor Michael Meurer of Boston University gives a famous example from physics. It involves the relationship of energy, mass and the speed of light, written as the letter c.
在这项裁决中，法院拒绝其专利申请仅仅是因为该想法过于抽象。波士顿大学法律教授迈克尔·梅尔例举了物理学方面一个著名的案例，该案例涉及到能量、质量，以及用字母c的表示的光速之间的关系。
注：爱因斯坦著名的质能方程式E=mc^2，E表示能量，m代表质量，而c则表示光速。

MICHAEL MEURER: "The Supreme Court has said, for example, if Albert Einstein determined that E = mc squared -- which he did -- he never would have been able to get a patent on that. That's too abstract."
梅尔：“最高法院举例称，爱因斯坦认为E=mc^2 — 但他永远不可能获得这项专利注册，这太抽象了。” 

In the Bilski case, the court said patent examiners could consider what is known as the machine-or-transformation test. This is the idea that a patent should be given to a machine or something that creates a material change, like a chemical process.
在比尔斯基（Bilski）案件中，法院称，专利审查员可考虑所谓的“机器或转换测试”。也就是说，专利应该授予机器，或产生实质变化的东西，例如化学流程。

But a majority of justices said patent examiners must also protect innovation. Patent lawyer Meredith Martin Addy says no one wants to suppress creativity.
但是，大多数的法官也表示，专利审查员必须保护创新。专利律师阿迪说，没有任何人希望压制创造力。

MEREDITH MARTIN ADDY: "You can have that test, but it can't be an exclusive test because of the nature of the patent laws which are to protect new and unknown inventions."
阿迪：“你可以要求测试，但它不能是唯一的途径。因为专利法的本质是保护新的，未知的发明。”

Now, more cases will be needed to define the legal limits of business method patents. Such patents already exist. In March, for example, after re-examination, Amazon.com received a patent for its one-click ordering process.
现在，现在需要更多的案例来确定商业方法专利的法律界线。这种专利已经存在。例如，三月份，经过重新审查，亚马逊在线（Amazon.com）获得了“一键订购”专利。

Photo: AP
Rand Warsaw discussing his Supreme Court case at his offices in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania last year

This is the VOA Special English Economics Report.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court decided a case on the property rights of inventors. The question was whether a business method is enough of an invention to receive a patent. Patents are a form of intellectual property. They give legal protections to individuals and companies against the copying of their inventions.

Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw wanted to patent a method to let traders protect against the risk of price changes in energy markets. The United States Patent and Trademark Office said no.

So the inventors went to court. Again they were told no. Finally, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Last month, all nine justices said no.

But they only said no to a patent in this case. Patent lawyer Meredith Martin Addy in Chicago explains that the court ruled narrowly.

MEREDITH MARTIN ADDY: "The Supreme Court held that there is no categorical rule denying patent protection for business method patents."

When patent laws were first developed, most patents were for machines. But since the late nineteen nineties, inventors of business methods and processes have increasingly sought patent protection.

Technology companies, especially software makers, watched the case closely. They were concerned that the Supreme Court would require a test of some kind that could limit what can be patented.

In its ruling, the court decided against the patent only because the idea was too abstract. Law professor Michael Meurer of Boston University gives a famous example from physics. It involves the relationship of energy, mass and the speed of light, written as the letter c.

MICHAEL MEURER: "The Supreme Court has said, for example, if Albert Einstein determined that E = mc squared -- which he did -- he never would have been able to get a patent on that. That's too abstract."

In the Bilski case, the court said patent examiners could consider what is known as the machine-or-transformation test. This is the idea that a patent should be given to a machine or something that creates a material change, like a chemical process.

But a majority of justices said patent examiners must also protect innovation. Patent lawyer Meredith Martin Addy says no one wants to suppress creativity.

MEREDITH MARTIN ADDY: "You can have that test, but it can't be an exclusive test because of the nature of the patent laws which are to protect new and unknown inventions."

Now, more cases will be needed to define the legal limits of business method patents. Such patents already exist. In March, for example, after re-examination, Amazon.com received a patent for its one-click ordering process.

And that's the VOA Special English Economics Report, written by Mario Ritter. I'm Steve Ember.