From jtobey@john-edwin-tobey.org Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:19:46 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 11:19:46 -0500 (EST)
From: John Tobey jtobey@john-edwin-tobey.org
Subject: [Patents] Re: [Patents] Re: cute campaign?

PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de> wrote:
> > >define "software" cleanly enough to allow such patents to then be
> > >banned.
> 
> I don't find this definition difficult at all.
> The borderline is: industrial vs non-industrial.
> Information is not industrial, because it can be replicated by copying.
> Life is not industrial, because it replicates itself.
> Aspirin can be patented, because in order to replicate it you need to go
> through the industrial process that is patented.

...or find a different process that produces the same chemical, which
would no doubt get you sued.  I don't thing this analogy is perfect,
since I'm in favor of eliminating all software patents (at the expense
of the tiny minority that are "good"), but I'm not sure I want to
allow companies to get around drug patents by (wastefully) developing
different synthesis processes.

It's a question of judgment on the part of the patent offices.  If
software patents were granted at 0.01% the rate they are now, there
would be no objection to software patents.

I wonder if this whole issue will be resolved by simply waiting until
all the most obvious software patents have expired and patent offices
get better at identifying inventive and useful software processes.
Until then, we would be better off banning software patents.

-John

ps- on http://swpat.ffii.org/indexen.html replace "to legitimate" with
"to legitimise".  (or "to legitimize" for American readers)




