From phm@a2e.de Tue, 1 Aug 2000 23:07:27 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 23:07:27 +0200 (CEST)
From: PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de
Subject: [Patents] DeCSS, source code and software patents

> > This is precisely where written European patent law (EPC 52) places the
> > boundary:  patent rights can not be claimed against informational objects
> > but only for inventions that imply more than an informational object in
> > order to be realised.
> >
> > This distinction is also formulated in our petition text.  By speaking
> > about the "dissemination of computer programs", we imply that computer
> > programs are information that is "disseminated" and not devices that are
> > "distributed".
> >
> 
> Computer programs = information that is "disseminated". I am surprised by this
> concept.
> Do you apply it to the source code, the binary... How do you consider a
> firmware embedded in an appliance?

The source code, the binary, a chemical formula... informational entities
that can be copied and are independent of the medium that they are stored
on.

To make the border in patent law very clear, any invention for whose
realisation an informational entity is enough (i.e. that is emodied by
information "as such" and not by information + matter), should not be
patentable.

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 to
patenting software inventions (such as a motor with an ABS control system)
that they might be unhappy if these inventions are no longer patentable.
And patenting them doesn't do much harm, as long as only the whole 
device and not the information is targeted.

Targeting information as such is like patenting a chemical formula:  
dangerous nonsense.  You can patent the material products and processes,
but not the informational descriptions of these processes.

-phm





