From phm@a2e.de  Sat Jul 21 21:33:20 2001
From: phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 22:33:20 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [Patents] Re: [FYI] 16% Increase in EPO Filings
In-Reply-To: <0.700002152.859689779-738719082-995739031@topica.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107212157200.5982-100000@mulix.oas.a2e.de>

> This whole debate about software patents misses the point.  Computer
> programs can serve the same regulatory functions in an invention as
> mechanical parts, like gyroscopes, timing gears, etc.  Thus merely
> distinguishing between software and hardware does not suffice to
> distinguish patentable from non-patentable technologies.

That's right.
Which is why European (and other) patent law has developped the concept of
technical invention.

See http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/korcu/ and read especially the
Dispositionsprogramm decision, which is available in English.

In the EPC, computer programs are one of several examples of problem
solutions that never qualify as technical inventions.  This does not mean
that their hardware equivalents qualify.  Of course they don't.  In fact a
computer program executed on a processor *is* hardware.  But the problem
solution found in a computer program is an abstract functionality which
is independent of the natural forces which may eventually be used during
the (non-inventive) materialisation of that functionality.

Technical inventions occur between an abstract idea and its
materialisation.  When you write computer programs or design hardware with
co-design tools, there is nothing inventive between the abstract idea and
its materialisation. However, when you write a chemical formula (which is
an abstract idea), you have not solved any problem.  The work is in making
a reaction actually work the way you conceived it.  This may change when
we get the universal chemistry computer or nano-technology system.  But
that is a long way to go.  Patent lawyers should stop falling into panic
when they see that more and more problems can be solved by mathematics.
That is the whole purpose of progress.  Good systems are there to
eliminate themselves in the long run, and technical inventions will never
be eliminated.  The only thing that can happen is that they will not be
as central to the economy as they were in the 19th century.

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







