From epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:23:19 +0000
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:23:19 +0000
From: Ed Avis epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk
Subject: [Patents] Re: Patents digest, Vol 1 #162 - 2 msgs

>From: Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>

> "1. That the patent laws should recognize that business method and
> software patents are fundamentally different than other kinds of patents."
> 
>    GREG comment: I disagree.  To the extent one equates business method
>    and software patents, in light of the Doctrine of Equivalents and the
>    latest hardware/software codesign tools, one has to equate software
>    and hardware/electronics patents.

Why?  Is this for ideological reasons?  Surely if it makes economic
sense, we should draw a distinction between software and hardware. 
The patent system is not an end in itself, it is meant to serve the
general public.  If it is in the public interest for the patent system
to exclude software, then it should do so.  The fact that things are
done in a particular way for hardware does not justify blindly copying
that system for a completely different area.  Other areas of law
already recognize that the two are fundamentally different - you can
copyright a computer program but not a piece of hardware.

Consider a musical score which describes a chord of three notes.  You
can copyright this score, but not patent the concept of playing three
notes at once.  OTOH, you could design a new type of piano which has a
special mechanism for playing three notes, and you could patent it. 
So it is with software and hardware.  In many cases you will be able
to achieve the same effect, but one needs copyrights (and not patents)
while the other can be patented.

-- 
Ed Avis
epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk




