From srctran@world.std.com  Mon Dec 18 17:14:11 2000
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:14:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory Aharonian srctran@world.std.com
Subject: [Patents] regulation draft proposal: revision

It is written:
>... A "computer program with a further technical effect" belongs to
>... the category of computer programs and hence also of "computer
>... programs as such", whatever that may mean in the absence of a
>... proper syntactic context.

You might want to change "syntactic" to "semantic", since that is
the key issue - what do these words mean.  Here is a sample semantic
context for your sentences:
	Computer programs, as the work product of computer
	scientists in the field of computer science are as
	technical as any other technical field being
	patented, and therefore as patentable, if indeed
	"computer science" is a science, since the standard
	definition of "technical" in dictionaries around the
	world is usually "mechanical or scientific".

	So is computer science a science?  There are two ways
	to address this question.  One is to view computer
	science as mostly a subset of mathematics.  That way,
	since mathematics is a science, so to is computer
	science (making mathematics patentable as long as
	you fill the patent specification with lots of real
	world, physical uses of the math technique to be
	patented [which is currently US law]).

	The second view is to consider science as a process
	of making models, collecting data to test the models,
	and keep on doing this endlessly.  Given the large
	numbers of computer programs and programmers, there
	is lots of data to be collected, and is being
	collected (for example, all of those studies of
	data traffic patterns on the Internet).  And while
	not as advanced a science (in terms of models) as
	physics or chemistry, there are models of computer
	phenomena being built and used (for example, models
	to predict how much time and money it will cost to
	develop a new software system).  Enough so that
	in this view, computer science is a science.

	And being a science, semantically, makes it technical.
	And therefore a priori patentable where technical or
	technical effect or technicity or whatever is the
	governing philosophical principle.

In short, trying to win these arguments with word games like your
statement 2) is easily frustrated with word games from your
opponents.

Greg Aharonian




