[Patents] regulation draft proposal: revision

[Gregory Aharonian srctran@world.std.com]

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