[Patents] Pro Software Patents = Illegal

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

This should make it clear!

Anyone who is pro software patents is a deceiver.
To be a deceiver is illegal.

        Roland


On Wed, 9 May 2001, Roland Orre wrote:
> Thanks for pointing this out Pilch.
> As I understand it is dangerous of me expressing me the way I did,
> as it can certainly be mis-understood, but I had never thought
> about that view.
> Of course, the number of patentable inventions will not "dry up"
> instead it will go to infinity, for me that was obvious.
>
> What I mean, software can not be patentable because software
> represents a "perfect world". Any attempt to patent something
> in this perfect world will strike too wide and cause harm because
> you cut away a fork of infinitely many possibilities.
>
> If you should be able to patent something it is the "leaves" in
> this tree, but not the "forks". Considering software there are
> no "leaves", so software is not patentable.
>
>       Roland
>
> On Wed, 9 May 2001, PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> > > Greg belive in something, Greg believe that hardware and
> > > software are interchangeble. This does not mean that Greg
> > > is an obcessed supporter of the patent system as such,
> > > which you certainly have understood if you have followed
> > > the discussions.
> > >
> > > I can not blame Greg for that view, but his view is futuristic.
> > > We are not there yet. Some day in the future when we have
> > > understood the programming language to model the physcial world
> > > then Greg will be right, but we are far from being there yet,
> > > when we are there we will not need anything like the patent system
> > > for hardware either but I start to merely realize that we should
> > > get rid of the whole patent system quite soon, because it's 20
> > > year time span and limited and costly protection model I don't
> > > consider to be efficient for hardware either.
> >
> > If you apply the traditional mind-matter rule elaborated in the
> >
> >     Eurolinux Regulation Proposal
> >     http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/eurili/
> >
> > and the world evolves in the way you describe above, then that will mean
> > that the sphere of patentable inventions will gradually dry up. Currently
> > I don't see that happening.  Although science aims to reduce everything to
> > information structures, this may not always work perfectly, and even when
> > it works for some problems, other new ones appear. There cannot be an
> > infinite supply of patentable inventions. Just as the ideas of music seem
> > to have come to a stagnation after their explosion in the 19th century,
> > the same has happened to ideas of mechanics and may happen in chemistry or
> > biology, even if reductionism isn't completely successful.
> >
> > I can't see that Greg's view is all that futuristic.  It is just an
> > extrapolation of the reductionist tendency that can be observed, and an
> > obsessive fear that there will be less and less true inventions.  This is
> > not only fear but to some extent a fact.  And Greg is by far not the only
> > person within the patent world who is obsessed by it.  It was expressed in
> > some articles in the 70s, and it is visible in most of the later articles
> > that demand the extension of patentability.  Unfortunately it is not based
> > on a rational assessment of current development but on fear and on a sense
> > of drift and anxiety about the future.  Similar to that politicians who
> > look for spheres of "economic growth" in more and more abstruse areas or
> > to old Soviet Union veterans who believe they must export their
> > "revolution" everywhere because it's so broken in the interior.
> >
> > -phm
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> > http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents
>