[Patents] Report on software patents.

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

Sorry,

   but I thought that that was what claims were for:

     To state what use is the patented object or process


   If you tell me its use is to sort numbers, then I am telling you
this is pure math, hence not patentable.

   Else, please tell me what is the meaning of "computer program as
such"

  or rather:  what is "computer program NOT as such"

Bernard


On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 08:13:01PM -0500, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> Hartmut's proposal contains the following phrase arguing against
> "non-technical" computer programs (a concept that has no meaning
> in America):
>     I.e, the solution of the problem must lie in a technical realm
>     beyond the realm of programming, and the exclusion rights
>     derived therefrom must be directed to material objects outside
>     of the program, such as e.g., chemicals or automobile engines.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Why is it scientifically inefficient?  When someone comes up with a
> new algorithm, such as a new sorting algorithm, I as a scientist or
> engineer could care less about its applications.  Finding applications
> is easy.  All I am interested, when reading the patent specification
> for the new algorithm, is understanding what the algorithm is doing.
> 
> What I don't want to see is lots of trivial paragraphs along the
> lines of "With this new algorithm, one can better control any
> chemical progress that uses this type of algorithm, one can better
> control any automobile engine that uses this type of algorithm, one
> can better control any electrical circuit that implements sorting
> in hardware", blahblahblahblahblah.  Adding such examples of how
> to use the algorithm outside the realm of programming is just plain
> inefficient.  Most scientists and engineers are smart enough to
> figure out how to do so themselves, and don't want to see a lot of
> paper wasted with obvious uses of the new algorithm.
> 
> So Hartmut's proposal sounds like a lawyer's dream - to get a
> software patent, you have to fill your patent application with
> pages of examples of uses outside the realm of programming, which
> doesn't nothing to help others understand the algorithm or apply
> it themselves.  All it does is cause patent applicants to have to
> make their disclosures much longer than necessary (thus the
> scientific inefficiency), pay more money to their lawyers (thus
> economic inefficiency), and waste more paper (thus ecological
> inefficiency).
> 
> These same arguments occurred years ago in the United States (in
> fact, most of the discussions going on in Europe now about software
> patents went on in the US courts from the late 1980s to the late
> 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
> just added useless real world examples (and irrelevant descriptions
> of hardware to the claims) to the specifications to satisfy the
> courts' rulings and the wishes of people like Hartmut to make sure
> software patents have a real world focus.
> 
> In the end, the software patents still issued, though at a greater
> cost to patent applicants.  And much like in Europe, while everyone
> was arguing these philosophical issues, no attention was made to
> improving the examination process (in particular searching) so that
> all of the idiotic types of software patents we all hate wouldn't
> issue.
> 
> Greg Aharonian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents

-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX