From Philippe.AIGRAIN@cec.eu.int Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:33:09 +0200
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:33:09 +0200
From: Philippe.AIGRAIN@cec.eu.int Philippe.AIGRAIN@cec.eu.int
Subject: [Patents] Re: Freesw Re: Patents DeCSS, source code and software patents

Xuan,

Indeed, if the reference is allowed to be a "generic computer"
or if even worse one considers that "a software represents its
execution on a generic computer", then the danger you are
highlighting is well real.
But one the other hand, it was classically accepted that if
you specify a precise device or physical process as an
execution environment (including all input/output devices
and contents) and if the patent protection scope is granted
only to that device or process and does not extend for
instance to the execution of the same software in another
execution environment, then patentability can be reasonable.
What do you think?

Note that as early as 1948, in his famous conference given
to a congress of psychiatrists, John von Neumann pointed out
that the notion of an universal computer is not a practical
one, that in the realm of real technology (that is material
machines, not abstract ones like the Turing machine),
there are no universal machines but only particular ones,
and that technology, including the von Neumann's model
of computers is about building the RIGHT particular ones.

Philippe
> PILCH Hartmut wrote:
>=20
> > [...]
> > But one could for reasons of political expediency allow material
> > embodiments like firmware or mp3 players to be patented, as long as=
 it is
> > clear that the software embodiment can not become the target of any=

> > claims.
> >
> > There are some areas in industry where people have become so used t=
o
> > patenting software inventions (such as a motor with an ABS control =
system)
> > that they might be unhappy if these inventions are no longer patent=
able.
> > And patenting them doesn't do much harm, as long as only the whole
> > device and not the information is targeted.
>=20
> You know that this can open a can of worms? If software "as such" can=
not
> infringe a
> patent: fine. But software "as such" is always useless for us. We nee=
d a
> computer
> processing the software to make use of it. If someone says "Gee, I do=
 not
> patent
> some software, I patent some software in combination with a general p=
urpose
> computer". So reimplementations may be written, but not used, because=
 their
> usage
> will always be in combination with a computer. This would be unbearab=
le.
>=20
> Xu=E2n.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Freesw mailing list
> Freesw@conecta.it
> http://mail.conecta.it/mailman/listinfo/freesw
=




