[Patents] Re: french views

[Gregory Aharonian srctran@world.std.com]

>Let's go one step back and assume my distinction between a logical
>and a physical was not workable.

Then go two steps back.  It is not a logical distinction.  If the
works of mathematicians mid-last century don't convince (such as
Turing, Post, Church, which you should go read if you haven't) that
such a distinction is illogical, then the latest hardware/software
codesign tools should.  With these latest tools, I can describe a
complex electromechanical system at a high structural level, and then
rely on a computer program to automatically split the functionality
into hardware and software implementations.  The computer can do
this split many ways, depending on how much hardware you want to use
and how much software.  To then say that only the hardware aspects
are patentable because they are hardware, while the software aspects
are unpatentable because they are software (where the hardware and
software are novel and unobvious), is inequitable and illogical,
and impossible to codify in a body of law defendable in front of
any rational court.

If you despise software patents because software is "easy" and
"obvious" to invent, while mechanical inventions such as magnetic
devices are "hard" and "not-obvious (requiring experiments)", I
will strongly disagree, since writing new, unobvious and
interesting software is as difficult and challenging as inventing
a new "physical" device, and therefore equally as patentable.

And if you insinuate one more time that I argue what I argue to
promote my patent searching business, I will sue you for libel
somewhere in a court Europe.  Grow up.

Greg Aharonian