[Patents] Re: french views

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> >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.  

I and others already refuted this before in this mailing list, but I'll do
it again shortly.

> 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.

My distinction is not between "hardware" and "software" but between
solutions based on calculation and solutions based on new empirical
knowledge about the real world.

As said before.

> 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.

Writing the software may be as difficult, but the patentable idea embodied
therein is usually found within one afternoon on a train.  Making this
idea patentable means expressing contempt for the 1 year work of the
programmer who implements it -- and perhaps has implemented it
independently and now may no longer use it because someone patented it.

You can't find a new magnet material in one afternoon on a train.  
Unless, of course, you already have a perfect calculation model, such as
what you call hardware-software co-design tools.  Then, even though the
result may be hardware, the invention is in the logical realm and should
not be patentable -- except if for some reason of expediency we decide
otherwise.  Bernhard Lang already elaborated on that.
 
> 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.

Sorry, the definition of "libel" at least according to German law is
"false factual assertion suitable for denigrating somebody".  I have made
no factual assertion.  Grow up.

It is quite normal that people's value systems are strongly influenced by
the role they have designed for themselves which serves their personasl
interest and makes them feel well. You need strong reasoning efforts to
overcome this kind of limitation or black spot on your value system.  I
don't see such efforts on your side.  I only see you quoting authorities
and repeating the same already previously refuted reasoning over and over
again.

-phm