[Patents] Re: protection needs beyond copyright? (fwd)

[phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>
Subject: Re: protection needs beyond copyright?
To: intprop-l@topica.com

> > It means for example that you abstract away the steel rods in the
> > Walzstabteilung idea. Their presence is not connected to the success
> > of your problem solution. They could just as well be made of wood. And
> > you can even abstract away all physical entities. The problem is
> > already solved before steel rods come into play.
>
> WHAT IF THE ALGORITHMS TELL US HOW TO MAKE RODS OUT OF STEEL SPECIFICALLY?
> FOR EXAMPLE, THEY TAKE ACCOUNT OF HEAT AT WHICH STEEL IS EASY TO CUT, ETC.
> LIKE A RECIPE TELLS YOU HOW LONG TO COOK INGREDIENTS, AT WHAT HEAT, ETC.

That would be a technical teaching.
It is exactly what the BGH found lacking in the "Walzstabteilung"
application.
Of course it would not be enough to add "in temparature range x..y" to
the Walzstabteilung main claim.
You would still have to examine whether those physical
constraints are really a part of the problem solution.
If the invention has to be defined by claim language, then the examiner
must check the claim language and remove any irrelevant or fraudulent
elements from it.

>       [...]
> > If you did know that, then computational chemistry would have achieved
> > its mission and it would indeed be questionable whether there is
> > anything left to patent in that field. You might still argue that
> > there is, because the model is not perfect. Because the model is not
> > perfect, there is still what I called a "distance" between the
> > algorithm and reality. Which means that the real solution is still
> > achieved only in the material world, and the axiomatic world is only a
> > means of getting there, but the solution is not yet completed within
> > the axiomatic world. That would be close to sophistry [...]
>
> WHY? CHEMISTS DEAL WITH SPECIFIC REACTIONS, NOT ALL OF THEM AT ONCE.
> ALGORITHMS HELP GUIDE SPECIFIC DEVICES WITHOUT FORMING ANY MONOLITHIC
> SYSTEM. THEY CAN DO SO WITHIN SMALL RANGES OF ERROR AND STILL BE USEFUL.

I was talking here about a hypothetic situation in which we had a theory
of matter which allowed to exactly predict any chemical behavior, turning
all chemical teachings into an application of mathematics.

Still, even in this case the typical chemical problem solution would not
be completed within the axiomatic world and therefore technical.

The question would then only be one of obviousness.

>       [...]
> > If all known-to-be-reliable models and logical systems inferred therefrom
> > are outside the scope of patentable contributions, then only those recipes
> > which cannot be derived from such models or which falsify/improve the
> > models can be considered non-obvious.
>       [...]
>
> ARE YOU SAYING THAT NO TECHNICAL REASONING CAN TAKE INVENTIVE STEPS
> BECAUSE IT CAN ALL BE FORMULATED AS ALGORITHMS?

Reasoning within a known theory sould not constitute an inventive step.
But if there is a teaching about matter which does not follow from known
theories, then it doesn't matter whether this teaching can be formulated
as algorithms.

One source of difficulty in all this is that we have several related but
not identical dichotomies:

(1) physical causality + logical functionality = practical solution
(2) model of causality + logical inferences = explanation of solution
(3) physical apparatus + virtual machine = computer implementation

It seems that the computer was invented to bring these together, i.e. to
allow man to play on physical causality like on a claviature.
If a problem is already solved at the level of the virtual machine, then
you know that it has already been reduced to logics.  But this does not
mean that physical apparatusses do not contain any logics which is waiting
to be taken out and transferred to the virtual machine.
On the other hand, much of the "logical inferences" part e.g. in chemistry
may never go beyond the level of a guideline for reasoning.
Even if we are able to reliably design new medecines by computation,
that does not mean that the new medecines themselves become computers
or that the models become matter.

--
Hartmut Pilch                                           http://phm.ffii.org/
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation        http://swpat.ffii.org/
85000 signatures against software patents         http://www.noepatents.org/

==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiHs.a2jybo
Or send an email To: intprop-l-unsubscribe@topica.com
This email was sent to: phm@a2e.de

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================