[Patents] Re: EPO 1978: programs vs inventions (fwd)

[mattias.lundstrom@digitalroute.com (Mattias Lundström)]

Greg

You can not use mathematical logic to "define" anything.
Logic is a method to reason about the system once your definitions/
axioms are in place. The only thing you can say is whether the
system is logically consistent but this is a rather weak criteria
in most cases.

Whether or not to allow software patents is a question of law and
politics. NOT a question about physics.

The fact that you can find a mathematical correspondance between
the functioning of eg a mechanical apparatus and a mathematical
set of formula (eg a computer program) does NOT make the formula 
and the machine equivalent in any non-trivial sense.

Can you not just accept this and that the differences between you
and Hartmut is simply a question about political opinions?

How many times does this have to be reiterated?

*sigh* 
    Mattias


PS. Some redundant stuff below

Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> 
> >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.

I could create such definitions without using any references at all.
Does this make me even smarter than Greg?

> So instead of tring to twist old archaic German court decisions to

Do you really think Hartmut is "twisting" the court decisions?
If so - please clarify. Until you do I will assume this is empty
rethoric.

> 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.

Which "German scientists" are you referring to here?
Is this also just rethoric without basis in fact?

> 
> 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

Sure there is logic for copyrighting software and it is very simple:
Many polticians and jurists think copyright protection for software is 
a good idea. Therefore copyright law has been extended to cover
software.

> 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.

Software can be an art. Today it is definitely more of a craft than an
engineering discipline. Be that as it may - it changes nothing and is 
really not relevant to the discussion.