[Patents] Economic assessment

[Gregory Aharonian srctran@world.std.com]

>Greg has systematically declined to justify why there should be
>software patents.

Nonsense.  I have repeatedly stated that I believe that that it is
difficult to impossible to statutorily defined "software" to then
be able to deny patents on such things.  That has been the gradually
evolving position of the US courts (the final arbiters of such things
here in the US) - if you can't define it, you can't ban it (which is
why they are allowing business method patents).  When it comes to
patent law, I dislike the uses of the words "hardware" and "software",
and prefer "computing" or "automata" patents, where the functionality
(and its novelty and nonobviousness) is the only thing that matters,
and its expression (hardware, software, optics, etc.) is a marketing
decision.

So when 52c says you can't patent "computer programs" or "software",
I fully support eliminating that language because the phrases have
never been well-defined in the logical and mathematical senses (which
then makes it legal for EPO to issue all of the "software" patents
it wants to).

People on this list might want to try to come up with a definition of
"software" that can actually be used to debate these issues in Europe.
Most of the American definitions of the terms encompass non-"software"
concepts such as digital hardware circuit diagrams and other electrical
and mechanical systems.

Heck, if I was ruler of the world, I would insist that patent laws all
be rewritten in terms of predicate logic, just to make sure that all
terms and rules are well-defined and consistent.  Current patent laws
on both sides of the Atlantic are neither completely well-defined nor
completely consistent.

Greg