Re: [Patents] newsscan: Software patent limits 'go too far'

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

Simo writes:
>> The EPC only prohibits patents on software "as such".  Since the EPC says
>> nothing on what "as such" means, the signers of the EPC left it to the
>> EPO to determine how to implement such a completely ambiguous law.  EPO
>> may have done so poorly in your eyes, but not illegally.

>I think what matter is the spirit of the law, not how skillfull you are
>in twisting words ...
>Simo Sorce

But there is no "spirit" in the phrase "as such" - it is a completely
vague phrase deliberately introduced by politicians into the EPC because
they didn't want to think about the issue, and preferred to defer to 
the EPO.  So the only "spirit" I see in the phrase is the laziness of
politicians.  You see the same political vagueness and laziness around
the world where politicians have passed laws saying the "expression" of
computer software is copyrightable, but not the "idea", withouth the
politicians explaining what they mean, if anything, by "idea" and
"expression", preferring again to leave this to someone else to solve
(in this case, the courts).

There exists a growing number of software tools that translate C code
into field programmable gate arrays netlists, i.e, convert C code
directly into a specific circuit of AND, OR, NOT and higher level
digital circuit components.  To that extent, I view C computer programs
no different than I view digital hardware circuit diagrams - two
different but logically equivalent ways of representing a specific
machine.  And therefore both equally patentable.

So it seems to me that some C code, claimed with a specific C compiler
for a specific target processor, altogether is a specific piece of
hardware, a specific machine, as patentable as any other machine.  To
be more specific, I can specify the amount of memory associated with
the processor, etc.  I can describe as specific and concrete as possible
a specific machine, a machine as patentable as any other.  I can do this
in one patent claim: "A machine to process signals, comprising 
processor P, memory M, compiler C, and source code S."

But it is kind of silly to specify specific processors, memories and 
compilers, since with a dependent claims, I can claim this machine 
using all sorts of processors and compilers and memory sizes.  But this
is a waste, since it is obvious to anyone skilled how to port C sourece
code across platforms.  So why waste claim language by describing
incredibly well known features, and just focus on the claiming of
the C source code - the software?

Now a combination of a processor, memory and compiler and software as
a patent claim (which is what EPO is allowing) is not the software "as
such".  To make everyone happy, EPO could require patent applicants to
include all sorts of extra language in the patent claims that discusses
the specific processor, memory and compiler.  Then both the EPO and
patent applicants would legally overcome the "as such" limitation.
So when EPO allows software patent claims that are less specific and
focus more on the software, I suspect EPO just doesn't want to waste
its time, the applicants' time, and humanity's time.

Is this all a bit of playing word games?  Sure, but EPO was given this
power by politicians too ignorant to understand software, and too lazy 
to deal with this issue themselves.  So they include in the law
completely vague language like "as such".  And now they are repeating
this ignorance and laziness by trying to put "technical effect" into
the law.

Greg Aharonian