From phm@a2e.de  Sat Oct  7 18:04:27 2000
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 20:04:27 +0200 (CEST)
From: PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de
Subject: [Patents] Re: french views

> Stefane writes that Oracle is against software patents.  That is
> false.  Oracle was anti-software patents in the early 1990s, but
> now has become a regular acquirer of software patents, engaging
> in the same patenting practices of everyone else.

Your evidence does not proves your conclusion.
All you are saying is that only that Oracle is playing the game that
others have forced on them.

On the other hand side, I would believe any time that in a company
like Oracle there are people who enjoy this game and there are others who
detest it. 

There is a study of professionals in big American software companies which
says that 85% of the programmers and 55% of the lawyers dislike the patent
game.
 
> These arguments against software patents (and for the record, I am
> not against software patents, but against bad software patents and
> inept patent examination institutions) are two major problems.
> First, I question their logic, especially this non-scientific
> distinction between "physical" and "logical".  

This distinction is not scientific but epistemological.  It is based on
philosophical terms that are generally accepted by scientists and are a
prerequisite for their work.

I have challenged you to criticize my argumentation, but you have always
failed to do so.  

> Alan Turing must be rolling over in his grave every time that is
> argued.

Why?
As long as you fail to advance serious arguments, the holders of the big
names you quote to support this non-argumentation might roll in their
graves.

The distinction between a "world of matter" and a "world of concepts"
permeates all philosophy.  Attempts to reduce the world of concepts to the
world of matter and subject everything to the same kind of natural law
have not prevailed.  Turing's machine is a kind of device whose strength
is derived from separating the two worlds more clearly than ever before.

> Second, your campaign will never succeed in the United States (nor
> should it), so even if you make some progress with European
> governments, you still have a cross-Atlantic problem to deal with, and
> I would bet my money that you would lose.

This forum is about arguing, not about betting. Also, whether my/our
campaign succeeds is a secondary question. We first ask whether our theory
is adequate and then search for a winning strategy.

The fact that most of the anglo-saxon common law countries (except
Australia) has always found it difficult to except abstract argumentation
of the continental European type doesn't mean that it will stay like that.
It could well be that Americans will prefer to just scrap the whole patent
system, as it is becoming less and less useful because of the simple fact
that more and more of today's innovations fall into the "logical"
category.

-phm





