From Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>  Fri May 11 23:11:05 2001
From: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr> (Bernard Lang)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:11:05 +0200
Subject: [Patents] Re: European arguing for patenting pure math formulas
In-Reply-To: <20010511151336.A680@john-edwin-tobey.org>; from John Tobey on Fri, May 11, 2001 at 03:13:36PM -0400
References: <200105102025.QAA08999@world.std.com> <20010511143852.C11785@margaux.inria.fr> <20010511151336.A680@john-edwin-tobey.org>
Message-ID: <20010512001105.A13789@margaux.inria.fr>

I stand by my statement ... Greg knows quite well that quantum
mechanics is untractable ... hence his argument is valueless to
counter Hartmut.

Now, I will not quibble on how the border (for patentability) is
defined ... the fact is that one is needed because the usefulness of
patents depends on economic parameters that vary from technical area
to technical area...  and there seems to be, according to economists,
areas where the parameters are such that patents are not useful, and
even harmful. If you assume they can be useful in other areas, then
you have to have a border (one of the first elementary theorems of
calculus).

  Though Church's thesis is not to be found in the library, we all
know that his work, as well as the work or others, talks only of
logical equivalence ... which says nothing about economics.  According
to Church, an 8086 and a P4 are totally equivalent.  So I am willing
to trade an old 8086 for an equivalent Pentium 4.  The day dear
ol'Greg accepts this trade (he gives a new computer for an old one to
anyone who asks) I will believe his arguments, or at least that they
are given in good faith.

Bernard

On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 03:13:36PM -0400, John Tobey wrote:
> I am completely against swpat, but Greg has a somewhat valid criticism
> of Hartmut's formula, and we will get further with real arguments than
> with false accusations.
> 
> Greg's grain of truth: a mathematical proof is relatively easy when
> one knows what is to be proved.
> 
> I rephrase Hartmut's statement: A patent on an invention in the realm
> of applied natural science is valid until the day when someone has
> mathematically deduced it from prior knowledge in a cheap process that
> does not benefit from knowledge of the patented material.
> 
> But this rule may not exclude all software patents, since proving
> code, while easier than quantum mechanics, is still tricky.  Isn't it
> the case that some encryption algorithms rely on a currently unproven
> proposition, which if false would render them vulnerable to easy
> attack?  One might conclude that the algorithms should be patentable.
> 
> I prefer another formulation: No patent should prevent people from
> doing whatever they want with information, including copying,
> transmitting, manipulating, augmenting, or interpreting it.
> 
> In other words, patents may legally restrict the processing of matter,
> but not the processing of knowledge.
> 
> (To write this into law, one must point out that such effects as the
> motion of electrons in information processing are irrelevant.)
> 
> -John
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:38:52PM +0200, Bernard Lang wrote:
> > 
> >   So I am wondering whether these statements are in good faith
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:25:35PM -0400, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> > > Hartmut writes:
> > > >A patent on an invention in the realm of applied natural science is valid
> > > >until the day when someone has mathematically reduced it to prior
> > > >knowledge.
> > > 
> > > So I suppose you are against all chemical patents, since I can reduce all
> > > chemical structures to quantum mechanical wavefunctions, derive new
> > > chemical by combining such wavefunctions, and even test out the properties
> > > by doing quantum mechanical calculations.  And if you are against
> > > chemicals, you must also be against chemical compositions and gene
> > > sequences, because they are mostly linear superpositions of quantum
> > > mechanical wave functions.
> > > 
> > > Add your opposition of chemical patents to your opposition of electrical
> > > patents (since all of your arguments against software patents apply
> > > to hardware patents), and all that leaves is your good old, physical,
> > > touchable, huggable, mechanical devices.  By chance, are you Amish?
> > > 
> > > Greg Aharonian

-- 
         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


