From mattias.lundstrom@digitalroute.com  Wed Aug 15 10:19:26 2001
From: mattias.lundstrom@digitalroute.com (Mattias =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lundstr=F6m?=)
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:19:26 +0200
Subject: [Patents] Re: EPO 1978: programs vs inventions (fwd)
References: <200108141428.KAA20155@world.std.com> <200108141839.OAA05410@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <3B7A3E9E.D16ACFDC@digitalroute.com>

Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> 
> >Whether or not to allow software patents is a question of law and
> >politics.  NOT a question about physics.
> 
> I completely disagree.  The words used by lawyers and politicians to talk
> about software patenting, words such as 'process', 'method', 'machine',
> 'algorithm', are words whose meaning is defined and reasoned about by
> using mathematics and physics.  So one cannot have political and legal
> discussions about software patenting without discussions of the underlying
> mathematics and physics.  On this I side with a growing number of

I will try to reformulate what I am trying to say since the message
does not seem to be understood.

In the sense that we want to use the same words with the same semantic
meaning to avoid confusion the definitions from the hard sciences can
be useful. 
(This is not necessarily true. Eg the word "obvious" when referring to
 patent law is NOT semantically equal to at least my understanding of
 normal English).

However: Patent law is not a natural law but a legal construct created
for political reasons.

To clarify:
Physics and mathematics has nothing to say about the question "How
should
patent law be designed?" without political decisions about what we mean
by "should" in this question.

For example if we think that the purpose of patent law is to promote
"science 
and the useful arts" then we should get input from eg economic studies
on how 
patent law should be designed to meet this goal.

If we have another agenda then this may change the definition of
"should" above 
and thus can change both which additional information is interesting to
study as
well as the conclusions reached.

> European scientists and mathematicians who talk about hardware and
> software as equally following from the mathematics and physics of
> information processing.

To repeat: That the mathematical basis for modelling algorithmic
structures
in software is closely related to the mathematics used in currently
accepted
physical theories is NOT relevant.

Even if you feel you have proven a full isometrism between the world of
abstract
algorithms and the world of physical reality this does not change the
fact that
the algorithm and the physical reality are distinct entities.

Again:
Abstract information and physical objects are not the same thing. Most
sane
people would recognize this.

I am losing hope in ever getting the point across here, but I will keep
trying
a little longer...

> 
> I have no problem that Hartmut or anyone else believes to the contrary.
> But do not complain about my occasional posting when Hartmut and others
> much more frequently post the same defenses of their opinions.

The difference: 
* Hartmut posts his political opinions ("Current patent law is
unacceptable. 
  Using the old German legal theories would be much better.").
* You post factually incorrect theories about the equivalence between
ideas
  and physical objects. You also completely refuse to meet any
counterarguments,
  but just ignore them and repeat your nonsensical ideas.

-- Mattias


