Re: [Patents] Russell's contempt for the motivation of scientists and engineers

[Roland Orre <orre@nada.kth.se>]

On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 22:38, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> Russell writes:
> >I think I am most comfortable with software copyright because I think of
> >the software I create similar to how an artist or author thinks of what
> >they create.  It is not simply about economic incentives, but about who
> >we are. The software we write is not simply a set of functionality in an
> >industrial sense, but an expression in a human readable language of
> >something that is part of us.
> 
> Nice insult of all of the science community, a contempt I see too often.
> Let me illustrate:

Well, now you insult me. I'm a scientist. I've a PhD in computer science
and a MSc in engineering physics. When I write a piece of software it's
a piece of art. There are thousands of ways to express an algorithm, if
you give 1000 programmers a specification about a specific algorithm,
they will all look different, due to their personal taste, each
expressed in each programmer's way. Of course, each algorithm may have a
minimal form, expressed in e.g. lambda-calculus, and after compilation
it's possible that many of the expressions of the algorithm will compile
to the same binary.

And again: Gregory Aharonian wrote:

>     The circuit diagrams we write are not simply a set of functionality
>     in an industrial sense, but an expression in a human readable
>     language of something that is part of us.
> 
> The symbols and structures of circuit diagrams qualify as a human readable
> language.

When you speak about circuit diagrams you are still on quite a high
level. Hardly on a level that could be e.g. patentable. Have you ever
tried to design a high speed circuit, when you have to make sure that
every piece of the construction doesn't fail the wave criteria, that
parasitic capacitances do not add up too much, where there may be a
horse race between signals which may cause unwanted delays? 
Now, you have to deal with physical limitations, when you create 
something new here, this could possible be patentable. You always
speak about things like VHDL design, but this is software, not the
real hardware with it's physical limitations. It's not enough
with an idea, like in software. When you deal with hardware you
have to fight the physics as well.

Greg:
>     The chemical process flows we write are not simply a set of
>     functionality in an industrial sense, but an expression in a
>     human readable language of something that is part of us.

You certainly know that chemical processes do not live in a "perfect"
world as algorithms. What are you trying to prove? As usual you
are claiming the same old story, instead of coming with something
new and possibly defend the reason why there are patents.
You are simply obcessed with that everything should be patentable.

Greg:
> Much of chemistry and chemical engineering is the exchange of new ideas
> using chemistry-based languages to express information.

And, ideas as such, can not be, should not be, patentable!!!!!!!!

Greg:
> And the same for every other area of science and engineering, of which
> software is just one part.  If there is something "software-ish" in you
> that can be so expressed, so to is there something "chemistry-ish" and
> "physics-ish" in others to be expressed.  Read the book, I think the
> title is "The Existential Pleasure of Engineering".

Just stop it! You are pathetic, but I'll read the book.

Greg:
> But at least in light of American case law (which given recent global
> treaties is easily extendible around the world), if the aesthetic
> aspects of something pale in comparison to the functional aspects,
> as is the case with most of software, it isn't copyrightable.  No way
> I can see any significant motivational differences between programmers
> and other engineers sp that the expression of software, especially source
> code, could rise to the level of its functionality.

OK, your view! My view is that software can't be patentable. I don't
accept your view.

Can you explain to us, if software copyrights were not available, only
patents, how would you then implement something similar to GPL for
instance?
(are you paid by MicroSoft?..)

Greg:
> So when you stop insulting the other patented branches of science and
> engineering, you are left with yet another aspect that software has
> in common with all other patented areas - that its inventors are
> motivated in a variety of ways.

Greg:
I'm a software inventor, and I don't want software patents, and I don't
want your anarchistic view upon legal issues. I want real protection.
Software patents do not protect software in a useful, not harmful
way. I want legal rights. Software patents do not provide this
in any ethical sense.

        Roland Orre