From phm@a2e.de  Wed Oct 11 17:27:44 2000
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:27:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de
Subject: [Patents] saoftware as such

> In VICOM case T208/84 the court establish a parallell between digital
> filters and analog filters. Let's suppose a input signal that is
> filtered by a notch circuit, made of physical components (inductors,
> capacitors, etc..), such circuit could be subject matter of course. 

Could be, if the circuit is made of new material or makes a new use of
natural forces. 

> So let's imagine that exactly the same filter could be impemented
> usind digital techniques, using a computer program, and a type of
> recursive filter. this filter gives exactly the same effect of the
> previous circuit. Why such a computer program could not be subject
> matter ? 

Because the circuit could also not be subject matter.
In your case the innovations apparently lies in the area of logics.
You have a complete model of natural forces already existing, and you
calculate a solution to a new problem based on an existing model.
Such a calculation could be done by an AI system, it doesn't even need a
human inventor, because there is no experimenting, no finding of new
empirical knowledge, no new model-building involved.

> It's no sense.

It makes no sense to give a patent for a calculated solution.
Then AI systems could apply for patents and the patent system would
eventually reward zero-cost solutions with a monopoly.
Or you might end up patenting problems rather than solutions.
Then you'd get back to the mercantilist ages.

> Clearly the new technologies, are using inventions where matter is no
> more the main factor. 

Calculating is not a new technology.

> In telecomunications for instance 50Kg of fiber optics permits the
> same number of communications at same distance, than 1 ton of copper.

Finding an efficient new fiber is not calculation and could be patentable.

> In semiconductors, the rwa material represents less than 3% of the
> final price of the component. the vehicles each day are becoming more
> light than in the past, so it's obvious that we are going to a world
> where the inventions are becoming more virtual.

No.
It's obvious that we are going to a world where the natural forces have
become more and more completely modelled and the room for patentable
inventions becomes smaller.  So what?

Yet there are vast regions that are unmodelled.  If computational
chemistry completely reaches its goals, there will not be much left for
patenting in chemistry.  But we are very very far from there and noone
knows whether we will ever get there.

Also, I am not quite sure what this thread has to do with the subject
"software as such".

The word "as such" is a syntactic function word.
Building a philosophy on it is like building a philosophy on words such as
"to be" or "it".  You end up building medieval-type metaphysical systems.

If you want to explain words like "as such", "it", "to be" etc in a modern
and serious way, you have to give some sentences as usage example.

E.g.

"A chemical reaction process can be patented, even if it is controlled by
software.  In this case not the software as such but the process is the
object of patentability."

Do you get it?

Mr. Breese, do you get it?

Or do you still want to build a metaphysics about fictional entities like
"game as such" vs "game not as such" ?

-phm  





