Re: [Patents] Hardware N Software

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

> > There's a continuous shading between content that is "pure
> > expression" and "pure device".
> >
> > It's hard to tell software from hardware at one end. (Greg's point)
> >
> > It's hard to tell software from speech at the other end.
> > See http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/ for a well-known
> > example.
>
> Good point.  I would add that "software" reaches a third endpoint:
> pure thought.  There is a class of problems that, depending on the
> day, I might solve either mentally or by writing a tiny program.
>
> Perhaps it is useful to think of a computer as an extension of the
> brain and of running software as an extension of thought.
>
> In my view, Greg's message about hw/sw equivalence is not all bad
> news.

It's no news at all, it's just 30 year old FUD.

> To those who wish to make money on their "software patents", I
> say fine, go build it in silicon, and when I want one, I may be
> willing to pay a little extra for your monopoly rights.  Just don't
> tell me what I can't do with what I have!

If the pro patent people proposed such a compromise, it might be worth
talking about.

Otherwise the argument is:  if building it in silicon adds nothing new and
non-obvious to the basic idea which is software (i.e. pure logical
construction, verified by deduction from logical axioms), then there is no
technical invention.

Maybe one saying by Albert Einstein helps those who still have difficulty
distinguishing logics and physics:

  As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
  certain.  As far as the laws of mathematics are certain, they do not
  refer to reality.

Software patents, according to this, can be defined as patents for
teachings that are certain.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch                                          http://phm.ffii.org/
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
100,000 signatures against software patents      http://www.noepatents.org/