[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]
(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec)
(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)
- From: Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>
- To: Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>
- Cc: kai.kiilamo@tietokiila.fi, PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>, patents@aful.org
- Subject: Re: [Patents] TRIPs lie: the UNICE version
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:32:46 +0200
El Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 04:37:43PM -0400, Gregory Aharonian deia:
> engineering. Since TRIPS says that descriptions of machines are
> patentable, that would include the combination of a general
> microprocessor and some software for a specific application.
>
I don't know TRIPS but I'd be very surprised to learn that it says that
"descriptions" of machines are patentable. That would be allowing
patents on patents. What is patentable is technical inventions, not
descriptions of technical inventions. The description is in the patent,
but the thing patented is the invention. You seem not to have understood
this distinction in your previous posts, that's why you are not
surprised by the contradiction inherent in the fact that a program
is it's own description and therefore patenting software is as absurd
as patenting patenting itself. If you don't see patents cover inventions
instead of descriptions of inventions, and think descriptions of machines
are patentable, you see all patents equally absurd, either material or
logical.
So what you're saying is more or less coherent in your world (although
the sane conclusion would be nothing is patentable, not everything is).
The problem is that your world is broken.
--
Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org
(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.
(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)