[Patents] Report on software patents.

[Luuk van Dijk Luuk.van.Dijk@xs4all.nl]

Ah, I was wondering where the discussion had gone, but then....

Gregory Aharonian wrote:

> Reading this, I conclude that Hartmut's proposal would ban a
> patent on a new sorting algorithm by itself, but not a new sorting
> algorithm applied to a chemical process or automobile engine control.
> The sorting algorithm by itself, I understand from Hartmut's words,
> is solely within the realm of programming, and therefore not
> patentable.

but then at least I could not be prohibited to just sort a bunch of 
numbers with it, would I? I wouldn't infringe upon such a patent with all 
this real world(tm) fluff added, so it would perhaps be a lot less 
interesting to apply for it, or am a wrong here?

> 
> If indeed that is Hartmut's view and proposal, then I argue that it
> is both a scientifically inefficient philosophy for patenting, and
> a patent law argument that failed in the United States.

we better learn from the mistakes made in the US then ;-)

> 1990s - and the outcome will be the same).  People argued that
> computer programs by themselves were pretty much math equations
> within the "realm of programming" (I prefer the realm of Guiness
> Stout).  The courts shot down most of this logic, and the lawyers

How exactly did they do that?  I would like to read some samples
of that reasoning.  Aparently they didn't get rid of the distinction
between the pure algorithm and the real world application fluff, if 
I read your story correctly.

Keep up with the good work,

        Luuk van Dijk

___________________________________________________
Mind over Matter         Mind.over.Matter@xs4all.nl
Bleekveld 58                      9711 XV Groningen
The Netherlands                tel +31 6 224 97 227
___________________________________________________