"algorithm" amendment

[PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>]

The Counter-Proposal has undergone some streamlining.

        http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/prop/#recit13

It would be nice to discuss and review some of the amendments here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Recital 13

                             amendment                              
                                                                    
A defined procedure or sequence                                     
of actions when performed in                                        
the context of an apparatus          A defined procedure or sequence
such as a computer may make a        of actions involving a set of  
technical contribution to the        devices connected to a        
state of the art and thereby         data processing      
constitute a patentable              system may constitute a        
invention. However, an               patentable invention. However  
algorithm which is defined           an algorithm is inherently
without reference to a physical      non-technical and can not          
environment is inherently            therefore constitute a patentable        
non-technical and cannot             invention.                     
therefore constitute a                                              
patentable invention.                                               
                                                                    
                           justification                            
                                                                    
The Commission and JURI Proposals in fact make algorithms patentable,
the only condition being that they be claimed by reference to a
universal computer (general-purpose data processing system), which is
the standard form of presenting and using algorithms today. By
"algorithm", informaticians understand a "rule for calculation using
abstract entities, such that the result of the calculation is
independent of any physical environment to which the entities may be
mapped".

The Commission text repeats an error of the US Patent Office, on which
Professor Donald Knuth commented in 1994:
                                                                    
    I am told that the courts are trying to make a distinction      
    between mathematical algorithms and nonmathematical algorithms. 
    To a computer scientist, this makes no sense, because every     
    algorithm is as mathematical as anything could be. An algorithm 
    is an abstract concept unrelated to physical laws of the        
    universe.                                                       
 
    [...]
                                                                    
    Therefore the idea of passing laws that say some kinds of       
    algorithms belong to mathematics and some do not strikes me as  
    absurd as the 19th century attempts of the Indiana legislature  
    to pass a law that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its 
    diameter is exactly 3, not approximately 3.1416. It's like the  
    medieval church ruling that the sun revolves about the earth.   
    Man-made laws can be significantly helpful but not when they    
    contradict fundamental truths.