[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: Luuk van Dijk Luuk.van.Dijk@xs4all.nl
- Subject: [Patents] Report on software patents.
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 04:03:02 +0100
Gregory Aharonian wrote:
>
> Hartmut writes:
>
> >At least if the process is to be program controlled, it must use
> >natural forces to cause a matter transformation not predictable
> >by computational means. The result of sorting is computable.
>
> Which bans large numbers of mechanical, chemical, biological, and
> electrical patents as well.
>
> Look with a supercomputer and a superSPICE (a computer program for
> circuit analysis) I can predict computationally whatever "matter
> transformation" is being caused by an analog or digital circuit
> being patented. Using mechanical CAD programs, I can predict the
> by computational means the matter transformation caused by a large
> number of the mechanical design patents being applied for (just
> determine the Langranging and integrate).
>
> And maybe anything computationally predictable - mechanical,
> chemical, circuits, optics, software - should not be patentable.
Hear hear:
notice the absence of contradiction in the following:
- *all* software is unpatentable
- all mechanical stuff that is just a computation really is
unpatentable
- all other mechanical stuff is patentable
> But once again I will point out that this just shows that there
> is nothing peculiar about software to treat it different for
> patenting purposes.
This seems to come up over and again. Am I a troll or what?
Maybe we should do it step by step, and see where we start disagreeing.
If we get it sorted out where the difference of opinion originates from,
I promise I'll write a FAQ on the Aharonian-Hartmut debate for the
mailing list.
Gentlemen, would you just answer the following question, please:
What, if at all, is the difference between a computer
simulation of a molecule and a molecule?
Depending on your answers I'll try to think of the next question.
If my efforts to get this sorted out are appreciated, that is.
Luuk
___________________________________________________
Mind over Matter Mind.over.Matter@xs4all.nl
The Netherlands tel +31 6 224 97 227
___________________________________________________
- [Patents] Report on software patents., Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez ramon
- <Possible follow-ups>
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
PILCH Hartmut phm
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
Gregory Aharonian srctran
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
Luuk van Dijk Luuk . van . Dijk
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
PILCH Hartmut phm
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
Gregory Aharonian srctran
- [Patents] Report on software patents., Luuk van Dijk Luuk . van . Dijk
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
Bernard Lang Bernard . Lang
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
Daniel Probst daniel . probst
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
Gregory Aharonian srctran
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
Xavier Drudis Ferran xdrudis
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
Bernard Lang Bernard . Lang
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
PILCH Hartmut phm
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
PILCH Hartmut phm
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
PILCH Hartmut phm
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
Gregory Aharonian srctran
- [Patents] Report on software patents.,
Edward Avis epa98
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)