[Patents] natural forces

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> So Greg, you are also in favor of patenting mathematical proofs.  Is
> it mathematical proofs as such, or only mathematical proofs that have
> a technical effect ?  Sorry... I forgot that technical effect is a
> meaningless concept ...

Not only that.  The distinction between research use and commercial use is
also meaningless and not supported by modern mathematics, especially in
the light of co-design systems, in which universities and enterprises
closely cooperate and any behaviour pattern can be realised either as
research or as commercial use.  We should be promoting these
problem solution activities without relying on artificial distinctions
created by some court decision.

Also there is no difference between research use and thinking or even
dreaming.  In the light of modern behavioral science, it can clearly be
shown that dreaming is equivalent to commercial activity.  So, if we are
going to give the patentee complete control, it follows that we must also
give him complete control over people's dreams. ... 
 
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 05:28:07PM -0500, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> > Hartmut writes:
> > >The basis of modern democracy lies in the distinction between information
> > >and matter.
> > 
> > Nonsense.  At least for Americans, the basis of modern democracy is rights
> > such as one-person one-private vote, the protection due citizens under
> > the Constitution and Bill of rights, checks and balances in government.
> > 
> > The distinction between information and matter has little to d with
> > democratic rights, and in fact it is questionable whether such a
> > distinction philosophically exists.  Under statistical physics,
> > information/entropy is relatable to energy, and under relativity,
> > energy is relatable to matter.  Under physics then, information is
> > relatable to matter, for example, the many discussions about what
> > happens to the information inherent in matter when the matter is
> > sucked down a black hole (is the information lost from the universe,
> > or is it stored somehow in the black hole, and potentially accessible
> > when the black hole evaporates?).
> > 
> > Combine the equality of information and matter in physics, with the
> > automata equality of hardware and software in mathematics, and you
> > end up with a pretty weak case for this distinction Hartmut uses as
> > a basis for having a distinction between patenting of hardware and
> > software.
> > 
> > So if I have to choose between well-defined modern physics and mathematics
> > and the non-well-defined decisions of a German court no one seems to
> > care to publish in English, I choose mathematics and physics.
> > 
> > And more strongly believe that those against software patents are
> > against hardware patents, and therefore all patents, as well.  Their
> > arguments apply generally, against all sorts of patents, not just
> > hardware.  Software is a more publicly visible target, but it is
> > all patentability that is under attack.  The distinctions are not
> > supportable with modern science.
> > 
> > Greg
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> > http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents
> 
> -- 
>          Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
>            SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN
> 
> Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
> http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
>             INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
>          Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
>                  CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents
>