Re: [Patents] Harbour contribution in JURI 20030616

[James Heald <j.heald@ucl.ac.uk>]

Simo Sorce wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 


Don't tell me, tell Malcolm Harbour   :-)

Or rather his lobbyist -- from the way he delivered it, this was clearly
a pre-written prepared list.