From phm@a2e.de  Mon Dec 10 20:21:34 2001
From: phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:21:34 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [Patents] more inflammatory speeches from Greg
In-Reply-To: <200112102255.RAA05447@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112102109480.5426-100000@mulix.oas.a2e.de>

> >Any complex program will however bear the mark of individual skill,
> >imagination, etc., so there is enough for copyright to protect.
>
> Wrong again.  All patentable inventions bear the meark of individual
> skill, imagination, etc.

You are negating something I didn't say.

I said only that ideas, processes and methods (i.e. what you call
"patentable inventions") are not individual creations, i.e. not
specific to individual creators but common to all creators.

> Complex programs are complex because of their structures, processes
> and methods.  Which once again, like all other areas of technology,
> fall under the patent system.  And specific instances of such complex
> structures, processes and methods for new software inventions are only
> common to civilization if they aren't novel or are obvious.  But those
> are determinations of the patent system.

Well-formed complex structures (also called 'tissues' in BGH copyright
theory) will usually be new and creative.  Otherwise they are plagiates.
But this creativity is not due to the novelty or non-obviousness of any
specifiable methods used therein.  Many great works are very creative
(skillful, imaginative) although they do not consist of novel/innovative
"structures, processes and methods".

Which shows that the concepts of copyright are more adequate both for
describing and for regulating the software creation process than those of
the patent system.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch                                         http://phm.ffii.org/
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation	    http://swpat.ffii.org/
95000 signatures against software patents       http://www.noepatents.org/



