[Patents] natural forces

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> >What is clear however is that any patenting of information works
> >infringes basic freedoms such as the freedom of expression and
> >therefore needs to be excluded ....
> 
> Which is an argument against ALL patents, not just software patents.

To some extent yes.
However freedom of expression by arranging information is different from
freedom of expression by arranging molecules or wires.
Or have you ever tried transmitting molecules over the Internet?
Freedom of expression is important in those areas, where expression is
connected to communication.

The basis of modern democracy lies in the distinction between information
and matter.  To the informational sphere, freedom of expression applies.
Especially Americans are often quite radical about defending their First
Amendment.  You may use a nazi symbol and publish Mein Kampf.  There is no
such thing as violent thinking that must be prohibited.  Only when the
violence is translated into physical actions the state comes in and
restricts freedom in the interest of other citiziens.

The decision to make a clear cut between information and matter is vital
to democracy, and it is also vital for maintaining a functioning patent
system.  People like Greg, John Smith and lots of patent lawyers who try
hard to muddle the distinction are really spreading a kind of illiberal
thinking.  This is allowed in a liberal democracy, of course, as long as
it is not translated into physical activity.  Freedom is only possible
because we make this sharp distinction.  The realm of information must be
kept free, both from political retaliation and from appropriation attempts
by patent lobbyists.

> I "express" my new digital hardware circuit with a printed circuit
> diagram just as I "express" my new software algorithm with a source
> code listing, just as I "express" my new mechanical design with a
> blueprint, all three of which circuit/code/blueprint, are
> computer representable, computer designable, computer optimizable,
> etc.  All of these expressions should have equal freedom of
> expression considerations applied to them.

See above.  Going long ways just to muddle evident key distinctions that
underly liberal democracy.  I wish you'd know to make better use of your
freedom of speech that you owe to those people who made the distinction
clear.
 
> So any of these arguments against software patents applies as well to
> electrical and mechanical patents as well - the language of the arguments
> applies to all of these domains.  So I can appreciate the argument that
> software is as patentable as anything else (for good or bad economic
> and expressionistic effects), or that software is as unpatentable as
> everything else should be unpatentable (with its economic effects), but
> not these subset distinctions.  In fact, many of Hartmut's words are
> generic indictments of the patent system, not specific to software.
> Not that I agree with such a position, but it is one worth defending and
> fighting for.  But not these artificial distinctions between hardware
> and software, the physical and logical.  There is no mathematical logic
> basis for such a distinction that can be used as a basis for patent law.
> 
> And for the record, "technicity" is an artificial word.  I can't find
> it in any of the standard comprehensive English dictionaries, and the
> closest words (like technic) have definitions that don't require the
> hardware/physical to be involved.  It was a word made up to justify a
> decision that has no basis in mathematical logic.  And if you guys are
> goign to keep on touting/relying on these German decisions, you better
> get some English translations posted real quick.

The word "technicity" is not frequently used, but it is inherent in the
word formation system that underlies the English language, and any
educated English speaking person knows how it is derived and how it is to
be interpreted.  We could as well say "physical substance", "materiality",
"physicity" etc, but the European patent law happens to have been using
this term, and it is shorter than saying "technical character".  The
latter word is used by the EPO, but I am too lazy to write it out every
time.

-phm







-phm