From srctran@world.std.com  Tue Aug 14 15:28:17 2001
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:28:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Patents] Re: EPO 1978: programs vs inventions (fwd)
Message-ID: <200108141428.KAA20155@world.std.com>

>And to Greg: Any real or alleged difficulties in defining such a
>borderline are not a laid excuse for defining that borderline.

I agree.  I just think that when you properly use physics and
mathematical logic to define these terms, you will enter up with
a definition that is consistent with software being patentable.
And I can create such definitions using little more than the
information physics and mathematical logic papers of German researchers.
So instead of tring to twist old archaic German court decisions to
suit your purposes, you might want to start hitting the libraries and
reading what your fellow German scientists are writing about.  To
them all forms of software are process, in the sense of copyright's
prohibition against copyrighting process and patent law's support of
patenting process - to them, all forms of software are inseparable
from the machine created when the software is loaded and executed,
in the sense of copyright's prohibition against copyrighting machines
and patent law's support of patenting machines.

There is no logic to copyrighting software, and any sui generis system
for software will end up looking like a patenting scheme.  So let's
stick with the patent system and make it work better.  But even German
science doesn't support your attempts to make software into something
it isn't.

And software isn't an art - only bad software.  Good software is
engineered, as it should be for any process or machine.

Greg Aharonian


