[Patents] Hardware/software codesign

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> I think that the duration of protection should be different and based
> on what's make economical sense for the society.

This is an old and often-repeated popular error that should appear in some
FAQ very soon.

This list should have someone who compiles a FAQ, otherwise we keep
turning in circles.

Here are some of the reasons why the above viewpoint doesn't help us much.

1 First of all you need a clear distinguishing rules. We already have
people contesting the feasibility of the technicity rule. Distingushing
between physics and chemistry or between software and business methods is
even more difficult.  At least currently the patent system does not have
the institutions necessary to keep any even very straightforward
distinctions (such as technicity in Kolle's sense) from corroding over
time.  We cannot do without a criterion for delimiting the field of
patentability to the outside. But it is not a very attractive idea to
introduce more borderlines within the field of patentability.

2 TRIPS Art 32 requires that all patents must be valid for at least 20
years.  We cannot currently change TRIPS.  So the whole discussion is a
dead end in practise.

3 Software patents are so ill-constructed that even with a duration of one
year and even with a stricter novelty check they are just a bureaucratic
burden.  Take a look at

        http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/pikta/

and you will get a feeling for what software patents really are:
monopolies on programming tasks.  Maybe we should call them that and stop
using the easily misunderstood word "software patents".

-phm