[Patents] Greg upset about "peace, love, linux"

[phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)]

> U.S. Copyright law states that no processes or methods can be
> copyrighted.

German copyright was similar until it was revised in about 1985 and again
in the 90s.  Yet even today processes can practically not be appropriated
by copyright, although much is possible theoretically, as copyright is no
longer restricted to individual expression of a certain creative level.

> That is a statement that can be put into logical form.
> At least to scientists in the US, most if not all of software is
> processes and methods and procedures and routines, etc. This latter
> statement can be put into logical form.

Do those "scientists in the US" also say clearly that software has no
other aspects than "processes or methods in the sense of US copyright
law"?

Do they also say that literary works (Shakespeare's Hamlet, an operation
manual etc) are all characterised only by the elements that copyright
pertains to (written expression) and nothing else?  E.g. Hamlet contains
no philosophical ideas and an operation manual is not evaluated by
its utility for making a machine run properly ?

> Combine the two logic statements (Software is process & process is not
> copyrightable), and under US copyright law it should therefore be
> illogical to copyright software.

Your conclusion might be valid within a simple model.

Since your conclusion is at odds with reality, the obvious thing to do is
to revisit your theorems and enrich your model.

Your theorems may be simplistic, your framework of reasoning may contain
wrong assumptions, such as the assumption that copyright must extend to
the essence of its object in order to be "logical".

What is "logical" in this context ?
Do you mean "applicable" ?

> Europeamn copyright law might not ban copyright for processes and
> methods, making software copyright more consistent in Europe.  But at
> least under current US copyright law and generally accepted view of
> software as process, software copyright in the US is illogical.

software copyright is not a construction within a logical system.
moreover, the fact that software copyright is successfully applied
sufficiently demonstrates that your logical model of software copyright is
inadequate.

Just as your logical model of the technical invention is inadequate.

It doesn't help if you insist on your explanation model and
claim the authority of science, logics, Turing, Church, Postel, quantum
mechanics, co-design tools or whatever arsenal of modern fetishes you
may have at your disposal.  The basic problem is at a rather simple
philosophical level.

Sorry for using an insulting tone occasionally.  I think I owe apologies
more to the audience than to Greg, who has in fact done enough to justify
a certain degree of impatience from my side.  Yet impatience is not
productive, and this forum is not for squabbling.

--
Hartmut Pilch                                           http://phm.ffii.org/
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation        http://swpat.ffii.org/
80000 signatures against software patents         http://www.noepatents.org/