[Patents] Patent system run for consumers or producers?

[Martin Wahlén mva@df.lth.se]

> Simple, at least for US patent law.  It has to be novel (section 102
> of the US laws) in the sense that in no prior journal, conference,
> book, or other publicly available media, that someone else has
> disclosed the same idea prior to the filing of the patent application.
> 
> Second, it has to be nonobvious (section 103) in the sense that using
> the same above sources, you can't find a couple of pieces of prior
> art that combined in an obvious way would anticipate the idea.
> 
> Finally, you actually have to fully disclose the invention in the
> specification (section 112), so on my computer I can recreate in
> source code what you are trying to claim.

So if Danzig had patented simplex (just to take on example) you don't
think that this would have hindered the adoption of the generalpurpose
computer? I belive that it would, and I belive that the patentsystem is in
need of serious reform.

> In fact, in such world, we would have a better basis to argue if
> there is a logical difference between a new hardware idea and a
> new software idea in terms of orginality, impact on the industry,
> hardware/software equivalence, etc.

I dont think that there is, but I see patents as bad for other reasons.
 
> Look, I have a degree in Physics, and a degree in Computer Science.
> I fully understand the nature of the physical and of the logical.

I can understand that everything that can be implemented on a general
purpose computer can also be implemented in hardware(and that modern tools
to build hardware are very close to software design). Hell, I have a
program for a computer that is built by wiring a board together (yes this
is an old computer, and maybe not general purops).

> patents are a bunch of lazy crybabies who probably aren't writing
> interesting software anyway.  Someone has a patent like LZW -
> alright, let's find another way to compress and then work to get

This is bs and you know it (especially if you have a cs degree). If
someone can patent algorithms, it can take years to develop alternates (if
they even exist). Ok, for the LZW case, that may be doable, but there are 
other fundamental algorithms that I would not want to be a programmer
without.

> Look, I disagree with Hartmut's and others goals to get rid of
> software patents.  But I can support his attempt to do so because
> it is a fun thing to argue over.  And my advice is this - don't use
> "suffer" and don't rely on those German court cases - to do so is
> strategically a losing proposition.  But that's my advice.

Hmm, maybe, I am not a patent attorny, I am just a CS student.

Martin