Re: [Patents] Greg: German semantics of "technical"

[Mattias Lundström <mattias.lundstrom@digitalroute.com>]

The patent system does not have to depend on some consistent philosophical
model. However, no legislation should depend on such vague concepts as what
"technical" means, without also clearly defining what the concept "technical"
means in the legislative text. Especially when we are talking about
international treaties (as the patnews article illustrates).

Using Hartmut's model of "controllable physical forces" is one possible
model, but it you could also use explicit exception like the legislators
tried to do in the EPC. In fact the EPC as it is written could have worked
just fine if there had been the political will to make sure the EPO
obeyed its limitations.

The argument that you need a totally "logical" legislation is misguided.
This is the same mistake Greg makes with his arguments that everything or
nothing should be patentable. The benefit of a theory based on "controllable
physical forces" would be the positive economic and social effects. Whether
or not it is the  "correct" semantic definition of "technical" is not an
relevant question.

-- Mattias

PILCH Hartmut wrote:
...
> However this should also not be over-evaluated.  The meaning of a term
> such as "technical" does not necessarily depend on thinking habits.  If
> the concept is to be used at all, it must be rooted in proper
> philosophical thinking that is rooted outside the patent system and
> demonstrated to be productive there.  As Donald Knuth has remarked (see
...