[Patents] Re: [Patents] Software Useright: Solving Inconsistencies of Software Patents

[Nick Fleming marmalade@x-stream.co.uk]

I wrote : 

> I just want to say that I am slowly coming to the same conclusions,
> namely 1) Not all software patents are bad 2) Need to figure out a
> way to allow protection without allowing bad patents - this is a lot
> harder than it seems !
> 

Nah, just kidding - I don't believe software patents benefit anybody
and are a highly impractical solution to the problem of legally protecting
software.

In response to JPS's Article on Userights, I'm still working my way through
it, checking the details but apart from the maths (which I have my doubts 
about)
, it appears to be very well thought out, well researched and reasonably
easy to read. There are a few points I think are worth mentioning though :

1) The definition of software is a little weak, in that it does not encompass
all aspects of computer software - where for instance , would you put
databases, nural networks and smell recognition ? I personally consider 
software
to consist of the following parts, which I find useful when thinking about 
software
patents,:

        1)    Conceptual Design.
                    - what it does, how it looks, the userinterface design 
etc.
        2)    Algorithms and Data Structures -
                    the two are closely related, so I group them together.
        3)    Language Implementation. + Static Data.
                    - This is usually the source code, in human readable form.
        4)    Object Code and Code libraries.
                    - This is an intermediate, usually binary stage that the 
usual
                    distributable form for commercial software components 
(e.g. DLL's)
        5)    Binary executable -
                    In the case of interpreted languages such as Tcl and 
Perl, this form
                    of software does not strictly apply.
        6)  Actual hardware.
                    Required for the complete definition of software

        Anyone got any objections to this definition ?

2) Page 5, 3rd Paragraph "...Because the software contains thousands of 
elementary particles.."

        This is a very important point and a major reason why the vast 
majority of software
        developers object to software patents. Is there anyway you can 
highlight this ?

Apart from that - its fine - (so far. )

Regards,

Nick.