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

[Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Gregory Aharonian wrote:

> 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.

  You must eventually admit that that this is a personal perspective, and
another valid perspective is that both should equally not be patentable.  

  You can agree with your suggesting that they are equivalent without
agreeing that either should be patentable.  The manufacturing process used
to produce the FPGA should be patentable, but I see no reason or logic to
considering the programming itself to be patentable.

> 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.

  If experienced people like those in this forum cannot agree on the
nature of software (and clearly we do not!), how can you expect outsiders
like politicians to?  Your constant name calling against people you
disagree with also doesn't help the situation at all.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/