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

[Rui Miguel Seabra <rms@1407.org>]

On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 11:46, old.timer@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> But patents are supposed to be about protecting concepts, regardless of
> any specific implementation. If the underlying idea is a patentable 
> invention,

The thing is that software is not an invention. It may be an innovation,
but that's different from invention.

An invention may use software in some parts, but those parts must not be
patentable.

> why should others be able to steal that invention if they use a computer
> program, but not if they use any other means?

I reject the term stealing.

Pure logical methods can be discovered independently without even
knowing of someone else's work purely based in observation and
examination and some calculus. This are all things that are processed in
my brain, for instance.

How am I stealing from anyone if I had all the work by my self?

Should we have thought police to prevent infringement?

Software is just (rational) thought translated onto a formal language so
it can be understood and then run on computers.

It could be said that programmers are translators of human thought to
computer thought, just like there are translators of English into
Portuguese.

There might be better ways to translate English to Portuguese, but
should some of them be patented? Clearly not. Then how can software be?
This is ridiculous.

I support the current definitions for Industrial and Technical that are
in the current directive proposal as amended by the European Parliament.

Hugs, Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part