[Patents] Re: Software and Technical effect

[phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)]

> Greg Aharonian is correct when he makes the point that software and
> hardware are interchangeable.  I have found that few patent
> practitioners really understand this, and as a result write patents
> which are weaker than they could have been.

I think everybody understands that you can implement any logic in
software.

This was well known and fully understood in the sixties and seventies and
has been fully addressed by those doctrines that exclude software (and
logics) from patentability.

> I make product design decisions frequently where I trade off the costs of
> implementing in hardware versus doing the same in software.
>
> Beyond that, I think that a patent which claimed both hardware and software
> implementations would be much stronger than one which only shows software
> examples.

> As to the arguments, which seem to be taking on an increasingly petty
> tone, that software should not be patentable.  Well I note that those
> who make such arguments are virtually always those who copy and not
> those who really create.

Would you give some examples?
What about the 2-300 companies that support the Eurolinux petition?
What about Oracle and Adobe and some other companies at the hearings of
1995 in the US?
What about the many programmers on this list?

> So the argument is really being made by those whose skills are inferior.

The Eurolinux petition has been signed by the most sophisticated
programmers I know of.

> Rather than griping about how a patent ties their hands on
> implementing a solution to a problem they should be finding an even
> better solution to that problem and file their own patents, that is if
> they can.

> Since I rarely post to this forum I am including a rather long sig.
> file so that readers can judge the merits, or lack thereof, of my
> comments.

Educated people usually judges comments on their own merits.

> Please note that I am responding to the thread in general and not
> necessarily to specific people.  This is an attempt to avoid
> antagonizing the fools who need to spend less time resenting those who
> do create and more time creating themselves. Perhaps if they did this
> they would have less resentment for those who are creating.

Again, educated people usually "name the horse and the rider", e.g.
directly address any argument they don't like, when that is possible.
Spreading prejudices about a whole group is usually an inferior choice.

> Ronald J. Riley
> 1323 West Cook Road
> Grand Blanc, MI  48439
> (810) 655-8830, Fax (810) 655-8832
> Personal Email: rjriley@rjriley.com
>
> President, Professional Inventors Alliance
> http://www.rjriley.com/pia/
>
> Advisory Board President,
> Alliance for American Innovation, Inc., Wash, DC
> (202) 546-8700
> http://www.Alliance-DC.org/
> Email rjriley@Alliance-DC.org
>
> Founder of InventorEd, Inc.
> www.InventorEd.org
> rjriley@InventorEd.org

This sounds very much like patent lobby, not like programmer or creator.
But of course lobbying itself is quite legitimate.

> Personal page:
> http://www.rjriley.com/about-rjriley/
> Views expressed are my own.

It might be interesting, if you can afford the time, if you tell us which
of your inventions would not have been financeable without patent
monopolies and how that has helped the rest of us.

-phm