[Patents] software as such

[Gregory Aharonian srctran@world.std.com]

Hartmut writes:
>Thus it has become more than clear that a "program with an [additional
>technical effect" in the terminology of the EPO is nothing but a
>"program as such" as was clearly analyzed by the BPatG

And I will object once again that anything expressed in software achieves
as much as a technical effect as anything achieved in hardware, because
the two are formally equivalent mathematically, and practically
equivalent in light of hardware/software codesign tools.

EPO's frustration and the US courts's frustration in trying to come up
with language to fix old-wrong concepts about algorithms, will end up
being dealt with by the EC/EPO the same way the US courts have dealt
with it - to just get rid of the prohibitive language about ill-defined
terms such as methods, apparatuses, algorithms, software.

Heck, just reading these latest discussions on this list would be enough
of a reason for the EC/EPO to get rid of the 52a to avoid the headaches
that their discussions will cause if they try to play philosophy with
the law.

I have developed both useful and crafty digital circuits and computer
software.  Both took equal amounts of brainpower to develop, and
similar amounts of time and cost of equipment needed.  I see know
reason why my inventiveness with the circuits should be rewardable
with a patent, but not my inventiveness with the software.  It is a
losing argument to make.

Greg Aharonian