Re: [Patents] Harbour contribution in JURI 20030616

[Simo Sorce <simo.sorce@xsec.it>]

On Wed, 2003-06-25 at 17:11, James Heald wrote:
> Now, the other point I wanted to make, because it has come up in
> discussions between many people who have been to see us, and in a way
> also reflects directly on Mr Berenguer-Fuester's intervention just now. 
> It seems to me that, and I come back to the same basis that I talked
> about before, that on the basis that the whole object of an invention is
> to patent a new development, a new state of the art, which involves
> computer software as part of a new invention engaging also other
> elements of programmable apparatus, that there is no reason why one
> should take a different view on that, in terms of the level of detail od
> disclosure, that one does on any other technical or related invention. 
> If I propose and patent an idea that is carried out by some sort of
> mechanical device, my clear understanding is that I am not required to
> provide the detailed drawings, the detailed dimensions, the detailed
> specifications, the technical calculations that have led to that result,
> the type of material that has been used, the tolerance of the
> manufacture, and everything else.  Those are part of my intellectual
> property in bringing the invention to market.  Now, Mr Berenguer-Fuester
> didn't at all explain to me why a computer-implemented invention should
> be any different; because essentially, in requiring that source code be
> made public, you are essentially moving into far more detail in
> computer-implemented invention than any other sorts of invention.

I think you re oversimplifying software programs.
The source code is the same of the prototype/basic drawings.

You do not need to feed any extra data, test suites, preparatory work,
what made you decide to use an algorithm instead of another, an
interface instead of another, compatibility tests, coding standards,
optimization considerations, ecc... (analogous to the detailed drawings,
measures, calculations, and so on).

You should just publish the raw source code of the key point being
patented, with a general explanation of what it does.

Simo.


-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce@xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l. - http://www.xsec.it
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
mobile: +39 329 328 7702
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part