[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

> Here we seem to come closer to the heart of the debate.  You seem to have
> a new theory of the inventive step, that is, of non-obviousness, that
> would in practice considerably reduce the range of patentable inventions.

Not necessarily, as Xuan explained, because we say nothing about how big
the inventive step needs to be that leads to a patent.  We are just saying
that there should be a contribution beyond the pure reasoning.  In the
minimal case, the contriubtion could consist in having ascertained that a
certain solution really works.  In any case, logics in isolated form, such
as plans, instructions or computer pograms, should be off limits for
patents, and the cleanest solution would consist in in extending copyright
to all works of logical functionality, be it software, music,
architectural plans, buildings, bridges (static constructions), special
lenses etc:  whenever there is a work based on individually created
combinations of logical functionality, there is a copyrightable object
and, consequently, nothing patentable within its scope.

> Before raising further questions, I need to think all this over, hopefully
> in the light of comments this clarification should prompt from others.
>       Cordially, Paul
>       http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgeller/
>
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, PILCH Hartmut wrote:
>
>       [...]
> > 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.
>
> ==^================================================================
> 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
> ==^================================================================
>
>
>