From phm@a2e.de  Mon Apr  2 10:03:01 2001
From: phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:03:01 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Patents] No point in everybody agreeing in a discussion
In-Reply-To: <200104020748.DAA14692@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0104021043090.2072-100000@querty.oas.a2e.de>

> ANd I will repeat, this is yet another problem that software patents
> share with other areas of technology.

All you are saying is that the patent system is creating huge problems in
its home base area already of physical inventions.  So no reason to allow
its extension to logical innovations, where evidently these unsolved
problems are even more detrimental.

> So even if you could come up with an objective definition of "easy"
> (right after you come up with an objective definition of "technical
> effect"), it is a definition "easily" applicable to all areas of
> technology, not just software.

Nobody wants to come up with a legally operationable definition of "easy".
Law is designed under many severe restrictions.  When under these
restrictions a workable system cannot be implemented, a less ambitious
solution must be chosen.  Again the choice is limited by restrictions.
These restrictions come from the fact that we are operating on society,
not on a machine in a vacuum chamber.

> Once again there is nothing special about software - stop worshipping
> it.

There is nothing special about the patent system.  Stop worshipping it.
It is just another system of law working under restrictions and not
designable at your whim, no matter how loud you shout on Patnews.

> Let's fix the examination process for all areas of technology

Even the best examination process would not eliminate 30000 silly European
software patents.  Maybe 20% of them, but based on quite arbitrary
lottery criteria that have little to do with the merit or demerit of the
patents in question.

You have been told this many times by Ramon, by Steve Probert and others.
Why do you persist in your mistakes?
Worshipping the patent system is much less pardonable than worshipping
software.  Software is a direct means of solving problems and improving
our lives, the patent system is only one of many traditional legal
devices, and apparently one that has big problems and generates a lot
of trouble at the moment and therefore must be dealt with in the same
way as other dysfunctional legal systems are dealt with:  without much
compassion.

> (and for the idiots on the list - fixing the examination process would
> cut down on the bad patents issuing which would cut down on my
> business, and yet I still argue that is what we should do.  Hartmut
> can have fun trying to find a reason why arguing something that cuts
> down on my business actually is a hidden effort to increse my business).

The thrust of your argument goes toward extending the patent system.
The reforms you propose are not workable.  Their only function is to make
you look progressive in front of yourself and in front of some
unexperience readers.

-phm



