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

[Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron@free.fr>]

The problem is that lax in itself does mean NOTHING. Law has to be
interpretated by judges and every interpretation is a new law in itself.
It's both a good and bad thing but it is certainly something you should
all have in mind when you speak about these directives. 

Whatever the european law will tell, there will always be a way to turn
around and to protect softwares by patents if politics and judges are
convinced it's a good thing to do. 

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:49:14 -0400 (EDT)
Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
>