Re: [Patents] technology definition amendments

[Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>]

Harmut posts some supposed definitions of technical

>                             amendment                              
>"technical contribution" means       "technical contribution", also
>a contribution to the state of       called "technical invention" or
>the art in a technical field         "invention", means
>which is not obvious to a            a contribution to the state of
>person skilled in the art.           the art in a technical field.

These are circular statements, and therefore not definitions.  You
can't have "technical" on both sides of the definition.  Saying a
"technical contribution" is something in a "technical field" resolves
nothing, other than demonstrating the intellectual laziness of whoever
wrote the sentence.

>                             amendment                              
>                                     "Technology" in the sense of   
>                                     patent law is applied natural  
>                                     science.                       
    I like the semi-refinement, because it focuses attention on the
real issue - what is science and applied science, and does information
processing, hardware and software, fall into a science, for such
applications to be patentable.  But no one in Europe is addressing this
issue - it would be nice for the EU or EC to fund a study in this issue
of the philosophy of science.  Without such a study, it is fair for 
someone, citing ample amounts of literature, to state that information
is a physical quantity and information process specifications, hardware
or software, are therefore patentable.

>                             amendment                              
>                                     "Technology" in the sense of   
>                                     patent law is "use of          
>                                     controllable forces of nature".
    Again, another semi-refinement of the definition of techical, for 
much the same reason - it is fair for someone, citing ample amounts of
literature, to state that information is a physical quantity and
information process specifications, hardware or software, are patentable.


>                             amendment                              
>                                     "Technical" in the sense of    
>                                     patent law means "concrete and 
>                                     physical".                     
    The combination of software with a microprocessor (the conditions
for which early sofware patent court decisions in the US ruled) is
both concrete and physical in that it forms a specific machine.

>                             amendment                              
>                                     An invention in the sense of   
>                                     patent law, also called        
>                                     "technical invention",         
>                                     "technical teaching",          
>                                     "technical solution" or        
>                                     "technical contribution", is a 
>                                     technical solution to a        
>                                     technical problem.             

Again, this is a circular statement, and therefore not a definition.
You can't "technical" on both sides of the definition.  Saying a
"technical contribution" is a "technical solution" resolves nothing,
other than demonstrating the intellectual laziness of whoever wrote
the sentence.

>                             amendment                              
>                                     An "invention" in the sense of 
>                                     patent law, also called        
>                                     "technical invention",                
>                                     "technical teaching",          
>                                     "technical solution" or        
>                                     "technical contribution", is a 
>                                     teaching of plan-conformant use
>                                     of controllable forces of      
>                                     nature to immediately, without 
>                                     mediation by human reason,     
>                                     achieve a causally overseeable 
>                                     result.                        
    Again, the combination of software and a microprocessor results in
a specific machine that achieves a specific result, once given the same
type of inputs given to a patentable hardware circuit.  And at least in
the United States and other countries, "plan-conformant" and "causally
overseeable results" are archaic phrases no one uses while sober.
    Besides, as I recall from a recent document, even the German court
has rejected this language as being archaic, and specifically criticized
people who cite such language.

Greg Aharonian