[Patents] Burce Perens: Software Patents vs. Free Software

[srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)]

artmut cites some German court decision from 1976 as some definitive
work of logic and reasoning.  He later concedes that the current EPO
term "technical effect" is ill-defined.  Well, the EPO decision that
concedes technical effect is ill-defined, in turn cites a German
court decisions that concedes technical effect is ill-defined.  So
I suspect that the 1976 has its illdefined terms as well, which makes
them unreliable as gospel for you all to worship.

But these arguments are mostly irrelevant.  There is only one important
difference between us that has any logical basis - that software is not
physical and therefore not patentable.

Even if I concede that ill-defined characterization, here in the US the
courts have repeatedly rejected physicality as a criteria for
patenting.  Across the Atlantic, you all are arguing all of the same
arguments we argued years ago.  You either eventually reject this as
well, or enforce this physicality argument, triggering a dispute with
the US and JPO vis-a-vis the WTO.  I bet on the US courts logic being
that which wins.

Greg Aharonian