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

[orre@nada.kth.se (Roland Orre)]

On Fri, 4 May 2001, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> Nice spreading a lie, which seems to be the practice on this list, but
> when you say "Therefore, can you give a motive why you want to abolish
> all patents already no"

Roland:
I'm sorry if it was perceived like that. I was definitely not
spreading a lie. I'm rather new to this list and from the brief idea
I got from your postings upon your view on patents I got the
impression that you were against all patents sometimes but sometimes
you were pro all patents. I found your statements to be
inconsistent, it was not possible for me to deduce what you
really wanted from this brief communication we have had
and I'm unfortunately no mind reader.

This may indicate two thing from my perspective, either you may
have an uncertainty about the state of your own opinion
or you are simply not expressing your viewpoint clearly enough.
On no one of these reasons I can be claimed spreading
a lie about you, that's the least I want to do, but I'm
very much aware the problem of being completely consistent,
especially as your own opinion is probably not static.

I guess that no sound human being, who is critically thinking and
review their opinion repeateadly can be completely consistent
all the time, but my feeling is, because your own paybill is your only
real reason to continue be pro software patents, as far as you
have expressed that, hopefully, your opinion is not yet so well
established.

Greg:
> you are making a lie of what I am saying.  It is you and the others on
> the list who are against all patents, by first attacking software
> patents, and then because of their equivalence to software patents,
> hardware patents as well.

Roland:
I have never said that I'm against all patents, which would be a lie
in that sense. Patents may not be perfect but they have at least not
caused that very much harm earlier, when the technological
development was not so fast the time span of the patent was not a
considerable obstacle slowing technological development down either,
this may be worse in the future.

What I said was instead: If we had the programming language
to model the physical world, then noone would need anything like
patents. Every individual would be self sufficient because the
technology would be self suffient. If you don't understand what
I'm saying please ask me to motivate this more thoroughly, I'm
pleased to do that until you understand what I mean. I've been
working with science and technology for many years and am
fairly updated upon the current state of the art and where
the technological development is going. I am also rather well
oriented how far the art of computer science has reached.

Greg:
> I am not against all patents.  I am against the artificial and
> non-scientific distinctions being made between "hardware" and :sof
> "software".  They have no basis in law, no basis in science, but
> are a way to launch a sneak attack against all patents.

Roland:
Even though Pilch has already given you some references I'm just
writing some words about the technical effect, which I will give
you later, but as I understand you have never discussed to patent
paintings, music, books and similar types of information. Explain
to me why a computer program is different! Even though the idea of
"technical effect" is obscure and non functional. A computer
program interpreted by a computer need not have any such effect
and this and still be performing something interresting, any other
types of  information described by patterns like books, music,
paintings and such obviously have a technical effect also, as they
affect the state of your brain cells, but the "technical effect"
then is caused by the brain, interpreting the book, as when a
computer is interpreting a computer program.
What makes computer programs different from books and paintings?
It's just different code words and interpreters.
A program without an interpreter is nothing, it's just formulas,
text, patterns.

Greg:
> Indeed, Hartmut has argued that hardware patents that are little more
> than 1-1 implementations of software/algorithms should not be patentable.
> I suspect he could then use hardware/software co-design tools to extend
> his arguments to be against all hardware patents.

Roland:
Of course not, when we were discussing user interfaces on another
list earlier, you tried to describe a program being converted
to hardware. Using a silicon compiler obviously do not change
anything, you still have an abstract ideal digital turing equivalent
machine interpreting instructions, which have just been translated
from one language to another.

Now however, you don't have a computer program any more. You have
a computer plus a program. I think you have mixed up the
difference between a computer and a computer program.

Why are you trying to fool me that this computer plus program
would be equivalent to a program?

It seems as you don't really know what a computer program is.

I have been trying to be clear about this several times, but
a computer program is not a computer. A computer program is
a piece of information, equivalent to a mathematical formula.

Any type of information which can be interpreted by a Turing
equivalent can be described, for instance, in the mathematical
formalism lambda-calculus.

Can't you really understand that this program is equivalent
to a mathematical formula, a painting or a book? Computer programs
are not technology, but computers are. A computer program is nothing
without someone that can read and understand what this program
describes in its formalism. It is equivalent to a piece of art.

Please Mr Aharonian, try to understand this! If you don't really
want to understand this, I have hard to consider your seriosly
any more, but if you are willing to understand I don't mind
explaining this further to you. Most relations cause arguing
and break up when people don't understand each other, and
obviously you don't understand or don't want to understand me.
I've been a computer scientist for 20 years, and have never
seen programs as technology. Programs are art.

I've been discussing on these lists a couple of days, but
have almost met no serious person defending software patents.
Why are the pro software patent people not acting seriously?

You Mr Aharonian, is the only pro software patent person I've
met so far which have acted reasonable seriously, and I respect
you for that, even though you claimed that I was lying about your
view upon patents in general, but having seen other's
reactions as well, this is obviosly due to your way of
acting, whether consciously or not.

I wish there were some observers on this list, representing
the political democracy, which could form their view upon
observing such discussions as we have had here.

It's anyway educational to discuss the issues on mailing lists
like this and trying to understand how you and other pro software
patent people think and why you want to do this.

        Best regards
        Roland Orre

> "hardware" and "software" are the "technology" of the "science" of
> "mathematics".  Thus allow the patentability of both, or the
> patentability of neither, but don't come up with these artificial
> distinctions between the two.  And hardware is no more physical
> than software, and no more functional, which makes neither eligible
> for copyright protection.
>
> Greg Aharonian