[Patents] (no subject)

[phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)]

> > .  But these rules are already known
>
> But flow-charts of inventive systems analyst may embody new rules, which can
> then be embodies in hardware or software or combination.

Probably these new rules are just more or less smart rules of oranisation
and calculation -- instructions for solving problems within a system of
axioms, performable by the human mind, with or without help of external
prolongations such as pencil, abacus or computer. That is not technical.
Technology/engineering is the layer between abstract ideas and their
materialisation.  The flow-chart ideas are already completed and verified
before you translate them into a computer process.  Thus the intellectual
achievement in this case lies in the realm of ideas (abstract
functionality) and not in the realm of technology (putting ideas to work
by using natural forces).  The fact that you can choose various
implementations and especially the fact that running software (=
computation instructions) on a conventional computer will suffice also
illustrates this point.  Inventions live in a realm of causal determinism,
not of functional ideas.  They are typically not implementable in an
infinite number of ways limited only by the performed function, but only
in a few specifically claimed ways, limited by the ineluctable working of
natural forces.

Again, since this seems to be difficult to understand to some people, I
must always recommend

        BGH decision "Dispositionsprogramm" 1976
        http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/papri/bgh-dispo76/indexen.html

        Patent Jurisprudence on a Slippery Slope -- the price for giving
        up the concept of technical invention
        http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/korcu/indexen.html

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