[Patents] monopoly/publicity contradiction?

[Toast marmalade@x-stream.co.uk]

As a programmer I just thought I'd add my two cents...

> > To describe a program "invention" accurately, you need to describe it in a
> > formal language, which can be executed on a computer. 
> 
> Not at all.  In the majority of cases a description in plain language is
> much clearer and far more effective.

I have seen plenty of programs over the past 20 years or so that
defy understanding just by looking at the source code (formal language). 

I've also seen plain text descriptions that are just as hard to understand.

Since software is primarily a mathematical undertaking, surely the best
solution is to provide both a description and a working example ?

> > Programs have a dual nature, which defies the normal distinction between
> > monopoly and publicity.
> > Do you understand the point now?
> 
> No.  But not for want of effort on your part, or mine.

I'll have to side with Mr Probert on this one - although programs do have
elements of invention, science, art and literature intertwined - for the
purposes of patent disclosure, there is no real problem !
In fact, the more detail the better as it gives people more chance to
understand and utilize the patent when it expires...

Regards,

Nick.