From srctran@world.std.com  Tue Dec 12 17:30:25 2000
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:30:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory Aharonian srctran@world.std.com
Subject: (fwd) Re: [Patents] Report on software patents.

>What is peculiar about software is that it is information and a
>process to transform information at the same time.

So what.  It is not physical.  But "physical" is not in the patent
laws, only words like "technical" and "functional".  And software
being a science is therefore technical (at least in US dictionaries)
and definitely functional.   This obsession about the physical and
informational is irrelevant.  Patent laws in both Europe and America
talk about "technical" and "industrial", and every definition I have
seen for these terms is easily satisfied by software.

And if you try to change the laws to explicitly mention the 
"physical" as a limiting rule, then you run into the problem
where software is increasingly a bigger part of mechanical,
chemical and electrical systems (like FPGAs), casuing as many
problems as you solve, if that.

Software is as much a science as hardware, because they are
logically equivalent (the Turing argument I make).  Thus being
a science, it is technical, and that is the governing principle
of patents.

Fix the examination process - it is a much more effective
solution than playing these word games.  All Hartmut's proposal,
and others like it, will do is to increase the workload of
patent lawyers at the expense of inventors.  Is that your goal?

Greg Aharonian




