[Patents] Powerlogics (fork of "European arguing...")

[poiqwe@excite.com (Erik Josefsson)]

With Greg's silent approval (?) I return to the list with our private
discussion. Quotes are Greg, cuts marked with "...", and "-" is me.



"As I just pointed out in my latest liberte posting, devices like field
programmable gate arrays pretty much blur the distinction between hardware
and software, getting us closer to their equivalence as assumed in the work=
s
of Turing, Church and Post."

- Well, if I can download it - it's software. But that's perhaps a too
simple rule?



"Indeed, these blurs are why the US courts are pretty much allowing the
patentability of all of these things. The US courts are basically saying
that until you can clearly define these concepts (hardware, software,
business methods), you can't ban their patentability."
=20
- I guess that's in line with what I said in my letter to you, that perhaps
the US patent system inherently has not the mind/matter distinction and is
now evolving by eliminating internal contradictions into a more consistent
theory where everything is the same. If that theory is false is another
story (may I add, you will never be able to "clearly define" anything
without infinite regression, which makes that path very long).

=20


"European courts are either agreeing, or coming up with obviously inadequat=
e
definitions (like technical effect)."

- But another line of law-evolution would be possible in europe if europe
did not cut off the embryo of describing the mind/matter distinction. The
eurolinux suggestion would be a step in that direction.=20




"the European courts will converge to the US position, because it is the
fairest - you can't ban what you can't define."

-That sounds like Wittgenstein to me, but I think contemporary linguistics
can resolve it into a positive affirmation. It it is possible to describe
the world without definitions (I think G=F6del said it too, but I'm not sur=
e).
I also miss an identification of the agents for whome the US system is "the
fairest" in your argument. But on the whole, I'd rather focus on the
problems and the suggested solutins than internal law hermeneutics.



"As much as I find the passions of Hartmut and the others interesting, they
cause will ultimately lose because a) there are problems with their
definitions and logic, and b) they are just too damn ... and ..."
=20
- I think there is something to learn for everybody in this debate. (I'm th=
e
nice guy;-)



"The question reduces to one:  should the non-physical be patentable?  I
answer yes, because society is evolving to one where most of the novelty an=
d
innovation in life is non-physical.  The physical-based patent laws, like
everything else, should evolve to provide the necessary protection."

- Yes, laws should evolve with society, but I think we have different views
on what should be protected. And that is unfortunately a political question
where logic easily is abandoned and replaced by powerlogics. With
powerlogics comes the tiresome work of analyzing both content and purpose o=
f
propositions, and you have to always remember that there is no committment
to resolve contradictions if they suit you. Perhaps "the more power the les=
s
logic" is a good thumbrule.
=20


"Hartmut, on the other hand, wants to make us all Amish."

- I can cope with that as long as they are vegetarians ;-)



//Erik





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/