[Patents] Re: overlapping legal regimes

[pgeller@rcf.usc.edu (Paul Edward Geller)]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, PILCH Hartmut wrote:

        [...]
> It would also be nice to have some pointers to relevant caselaw.
> 
For comparative case law and commentary through the mid-1980s, see Ivan
Cherpillod, _L'objet du droit d'auteur_ (CEDIDAC, Lausanne, 1985); for
comparative case law and commentary after that, see my "Hiroshige v. Van
Gogh: Resolving the Dilemma of Copyright Scope in Remedying Infringement",
Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., vol. 46 (1998), p. 39,
with a shorter version at <http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgeller/dilemma.htm>.
The longer, paper version has more references and pictures at the back.
        Many thanks for your further interesting analysis in the field of
patents.  You might be interested in this fascinating short analysis:
Allen Newell, "Response: The Models are Broken, The Models are Broken!",
University of Pittsburgh Law Review, vol. 47 (1986), p. 1023.
> 
        [...]
> In any event, naive or wilful misunderstandings on the part of the
> judiciary may reopen a casuistic labyrinth any time even later if we now
> seriously address the questions -- something which our lawmakers are
> currently trying to avoid.
        My argument indeed cuts both ways.  If your distinction cannot be
drawn with any consistent precision, the case law becomes more incoherent.  
However, if it can be drawn consistently in theory, it can be used to
guide the case law -- assuming it is applied in practice .....  (However,
as asked in the site you reference <http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/epue52/>,
"what is to be done when the highest courts rule against law and right?")
        Here's a thought.  Perhaps, a bare algorithm, with nothing but
abstract variables, cannot constitute an invention.  Materialization, to
use your notion, starts taking place at a semantic level, when the
variables are made to refer to "things" in the real world that the person
skilled in the art can manipulate -- and, the _sine qua non_, "useful,"
that is, "industrially applicable", results claimed in the real world.
        Just a thought -- not sure how it will work out ....
        Cordially, Paul
        http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgeller/index.html       ;