[Patents] natural forces

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

I see that we have now reached the proper level of discourse, which
suits me since I am currently doing some readings about the Valladolid
junta controversy in 1550.

  I see that you have solved below all problems regarding the nature
of the universe.  Closer to us, I note that you consider patentable
structures (associated to proofs) that are mechanically obtained by a
machine, and hence by virtue of their very mechanical design not
innovative ...  unless you consider that machines can innovate, and
hence have a soul (which brings us back to Valladolid : one major
argument of Sepulveda against Indians having a soul was that they
could not innovate but only copy).

   It naturally ensues that current plans for mass destruction of old
computers should be denounced as genocide.

   Now, of course, publishing a proof as such, can be contributory
infringement, if it happens to be a proof equivalent to one from which
some patented device is generated.  Now what about reproducing a patent
that contains the patented proof ... is that contributory infringement ?
And what about doing math homework ?
  Gee ...  I'll get my kids out of school before they get busted.

   But forget it ... compared to genocide ... this is peanuts.  Or is
killing just a technical effect, and hence without meaning ?

Bernard


On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 08:11:23PM -0500, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> >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.
> 
> You are right, it is a meaningless concept.  And, without a definition
> of "mathematical proof", I am not sure how to answer.  But in general,
> I would say yes.  For example, there are theorem proving programs that
> can design digital hardware circuits.  You give the theorem proving
> program an input/output mapping, plus the rules of Boolean logic, and
> if there is a circuit that can map the input to the output, the program
> returns a successful mathematical proof.  Part of the proof is a
> description of the hardware circuit.  Further, such theorem proving
> systems can be used to design mechanical and chemical structures, again
> where the proof contains a description of the implementing structure.
> Software, hardware, mechanical, chemical.  To these theorem proving
> programs, it doesn't matter, once you map the domain into logic
> statements.
> 
> So once again I argue that this is another equivalence of software,
> hardware, mechanical and chemical that requires that their patentability
> be equivalent as well - i.e. there is no distinction to base new laws
> on.  Everything Hartmut argues against software patents can be equally
> argued against other technology areas as well.  Loss of freedom with
> software patents?  How about loss of life with pharmaceutical patents.
> And yes, I think it is a shame that the jails in Europe are overflowing
> with software programmers founds guilty of infringing a patent - they
> deserve that loss of freedom.
> 
> Cosmically, since that is where Hartmut's logic seems to flow, the
> universe is a quantum computer, and everything in the end reduces to
> the informational - software, hardware, chemical, mechanical.  All
> big freaking wavefunctions.   Make them all patentable or none, but
> please none of these artificial distinctions.
> 
> So you ar either against all patent types or for all patent types (which
> seems to be the European position, at least those few Europeans hanging
> out here). 
> 
> 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