[Patents] Re: Software Patents

[phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)]

> >It is built on an arbitrary concept of "technical effect" for which no
> >definition is given.  The examples .... are both abstract and unclear,
> >allowing anything to be deduced from them. .....
>
> And the use of "technical effect" also has no clear definition in the
> EPO Appeals Board pension method decision, nor a 1988 BGH decision cited
> by the EPO decision, both of which explicitly concede they have no clear
> definition.  Which suggests to me, without even reading it, that the
> Dispositionsprogram case Hartmut worships also has no clear definition
> of "technology" and however they referred to "technical effect" back
> then.  For the Dispositionsprogram case did have such clarity, it would
> have been cited by both the EPO Board and especially the BGH.

"I didn't read his books, but I agree that he is a reactionary" was a
standard way of authors to refer to their colleagues under Stalin's
regime.

> But for the BGH to concede it doesn't have a clear definition of
> "technical effect" is to concede that such clarity isn't in the
> Dispositionsprogram decision.

Not necessarily.  The BGH no longer has a clear definition of what is
technical.

> If the BGH is so dismissive of its brethren's decision, I think that
> is a good sign that everyone else should dismiss it as a historial
> relic,

or everybody should dismiss the current decisions as an aberration of
history.

> just like a fair number of US appeals court decisions over the last
> hundred years against software patents and business method patents are
> now being dismissed, as more recent court decisions, in more recent
> times, readdress the issues and realize the earlier court decisions
> were wrong.

And later their brethren may "realize" that what is done now is wrong and
what was done earlier is write.

> Given the lack of clarity in Dispositionsprogram, I suspect

"Given the fact that my colleague is a reactionary, I suspect that I was
right not to read his books."

...

> So as a bit of advice to Hartmut,

Advice is only permissible among people who share the same goals.
Everything else is cynicism.

> relying on one set of court decisions

... would indeed not be enough.
Who does that?

[ appeals to lemming instinct deleted ]

> And at least in the US, as a percetnage of industry sales, software
> patents are having no more of a disruptive effect, than patents in
> other areas of technology.  Biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents,
> and their economic consequences, are a bigger problem, followed by
> digital hardware and electronics patents.  And to date, with regards
> to open source and freedom, the only individual or small entity to be
> sued for using open source software is, ........, Greg Aharonian.
> Since I have gotten zero support in my battle from the open source
> community, I can only conclude that they are lying when they claim to
> be worried about the economic affects of software patents (beyond the
> fact that many are applying for their own software patents on their
> own volition).  So I am skeptical about an economic attack on software
> patents, because my data (which is bigger than yours) shows that the
> disruptions are typical for any new area of technology being patented
> (new in the 20 year sense, patent practice does take a very long time
> to mature).

> Which leaves me always arguing to improve the quality of issued
> patents, all patents not just software, so that the bad crappy patents
> never get issued, people like me are put out of business, and most of
> these controversies (usually due to crappy patents) disappear.  In
> fact, you would think Germans such as Hartmut would want to apply
> their country's association with manufacturing and quality to the
> patent process (which is a manufactuing of sorts).  Issued patents
> should be Mercedes, not Yugos.

As Greg well knows, he cannot solve the problem of non-obviousness
standards.  Even the best prior art searches won't turn out "Mercedes"
patents, especially in areas of abstract reasoning, where function claims
are at the order of the day.  Also the problem of prior art can never be
solved to the extent that Greg is put out of business.  He is here doing
his best to spread a disease for which he has some medicine to sell, and
he knows it and goes on with this endeavor.

It is strange that manners in the patent business world have become so
depraved.  As Ramon said in one discussion recently:  there are
advertising specialists who are critical toward advertising, there are
also financial gurus like George Soros who are critical of financial
capitalism, but it seems that the patent world is mostly populated by
lesser minds who cannot distinguish between their own short term group
interest and the general interest of society.

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