Re: [Patents] philosophical aspects of software patents

[David GLAUDE <dglaudemailing@gmx.net>]

>Subject: [Patents] philosophical aspects of software patents
>Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 22:46:07 +0200 (CEST)
>From: fred.boutet@wanadoo.fr
>To: patents@aful.org
>
>The debate on software patentability also addresses old philosophical 
>questions : are computing machines intelligent ? Can we think of 
making >software applications patentable withtout asking what represents 
these >applications for humans and for the european society ? If 
programmed >machines are intelligent, can we patent intelligence ?

Most of those programmed machines are not intelligent by any definition. 
But there might be a real question related to AI.
Human creation can by copyrighted or patented following certain rules. 
However, what about computer creation/invention?
Nowdays you can find computer generated art (music and graphics) that 
were randomly generated.
My understanding of copyright law is that something created with the 
help of a computer (like digital image done with GIMP) can be 
copyrighted because the computer is just a tools. But something created 
by the computer should not.

It is also an issue for patent. It is possible to generate an electronic 
circuit by genetic mutation of randomly generated electronic circuit 
(the whole thing beeing done and tested inside a simulator).
I don't say the computer is intelligent, just that he could produce 
"invention" that a human would not have found or think of.
Should that kind of invention be patentable/protected.

What about the "knowledge base" that an expert system could build by 
"learning" a specific area of knowledge. That knowledge base was not 
build by human, it contain basic knowledge or knowledge that can be 
infered from that basic knowledge. Also it is a kind a database that 
could enjoy the protection of some sui generis right. Even if it was not 
men made.

>Alan Turing (1912-1954), english mathematician philosopher contributed 
>to these questions by publishing in 1950 the famous article {Computing 
>Machinery and Intelligence} in {Mind}. As part of his argument Turing 
>put forward the idea of an 'imitation game', in which a human being 
and >a computer would be interrogated under conditions where the 
>interrogator would not know which was which, the communication being 
>entirely by textual messages. Turing argued that if the interrogator 
>could not distinguish them by questioning, then it would be 
>unreasonable not to call the computer intelligent.

Do you know of the chinese-box argument?
(http://www.killer-essays.com/Philosophy/peh193.shtml)

>When a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) studies an invention 
>controlled by a program (the ABS break system or the mobile phone), he 
>or she may think that the software application is intelligent, that it 
>is new and that it contributes significantly to the state of the art 
in >the technical domain. Hence, the MEP may be favorable for the 
software >application to be patented. This vision may be partial but 
this is the >main argument for those writing the proposal.

It is not because some idea are "intelligent" that they disearve patent 
protection. Obvious things do not desearve protection, but it does not 
mean that non-obvious things do desearve a protection. MEP will not 
study. And by saying invention controlled by a program you already 
assume it is an invention. ;-)

David GLAUDE