From phm@a2e.de  Mon Nov 20 23:17:55 2000
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:17:55 +0100 (CET)
From: PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de
Subject: [Patents] natural forces

> > ........European patent law contains a several disclaimers
> >which guarantees that, no matter whether technicity theory works or not,
> >certain (mental/informational) activities are not touched by patent law.
> 
> Oh great.  Now we are told that technicity theory might not even work.

That is what you say.

> I retract my request to get thes German court decisions translated if
> their value is so uncertain.

It is not worth your effort, unless you yourself want to build a clean
definition of an "invention", based on the mind-matter boundary.  So far
you failed to argue against the principles we exposed here. Even if you
succeeded, that wouldn't change the disclaimer for programming freedom.  
It would just challenge us to refine the theory.  Which we have already
been doing all along.

The only possible reason for you to look closely at the
Dispositionsprogramm decision of 1976 etc could be to find out how
the EPC was interpreted back then and whether that is similar to what
we propose now.

> Look, society offers multiple ways of disclosing informational activites.
> If you want complete control, you use a patent, a complete control which
> should be as available to software as it is to hardware, mechanical, etc.

> If you want less than complete control, you use copyright, a right which
> has been gradually weakened from an author's control system to a user's
> rights system.
> 
> If you want no control, you dedicate it to the public domain.

Of course I would enjoy complete control of other people's informational
works, as patent law gives it to me.
But I don't see why you should allow me to get this control.

> Where's the problem, unless you are against complete control of new
> software ideas (and therefore I argue, against complete control of any
> new idea, mechanical/electrical/informational).

The thoughts are free.
Any informational object that is created by someone else does not belong
to me.
Informational objects can be owned as far they contain some individuality
that makes it impossible for someone else to accidentally come up with the
same object.
This is why copyright is ok but software patents undermine freedom of
expression.

Information is categorically distinct from matter.
You are fighting the freedom of creating individualised informational
objects, which is just a lenghty synonym for "freedom of expression".
And you are not offering us any additional welfare in exchange for giving
up a key freedom.
Even if you did, you could not expect us to sell our soul for it,
but you would at least have a point to make.
But you still seem to believe that we will accept unfreedom if just
invoke the names of Turing, Postel etc often enough.
We should leave you alone with the headaches this is causing to you
and concentrate on talking to less prejudiced people from whom we can
expect some help for our cause.

-phm





