X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <ehj@cleosan.com>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from cleosan.com (unknown [194.198.15.242])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C38252EF1
	for <patents@aful.org>; Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:53:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from h14n2fls33o988.telia.com ([213.67.225.14] helo=cleosan.com)
	by cleosan.com with asmtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1B7Eo6-0001rl-00
	for patents@aful.org; Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:29:06 +0100
Message-ID: <40659C3E.3090907@cleosan.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:22:38 +0100
From: Erik Josefsson <ehj@cleosan.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040224)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: patents@aful.org
Subject: Re: [Patents] Software patents: the case against
References: <03c601c4138f$cf286a80$3400a8c0@chris> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0403270305340.3741@querty.oas.a2e.de>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0403270305340.3741@querty.oas.a2e.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Validation-by: ehj@cleosan.com

Hartmut Pilch wrote:

> If programs are to be "protected as literary works", that indeed should
> mean that the scope of "protection" is determined by copyright, and not by
> a cumulation of copyright with something else.  Copyright determines that
> ideas are excluded.  They can not therefore be included by means of
> patents.

When you stare at a word long enough, it's meaning dissolves. Maybe I 
have stared at the word "idea" too long, because I don't really 
understand what it means.

Literary works and inventions are different kinds of achievements, right?

A materialisation of a literary work is (e.g.) a book, right?

A materialisation of an invention is (e.g.) an industrial process, right?

The "protection" is a set of rules defining what other people or players 
can not do with a materialisation of an achievement, right?


I can't see where the word "idea" would make anything clearer or easier 
to understand here.

//Erik


  literary work is a book, right?

.







> I think the argument about "industrial application" is not quite tenable.
> Even if you reduce "industrial" to "commercial", as abusively done by EPO
> (it should imply that material goods are brought to the market), you still
> have a meaning of usefulness in there (functional vs esthetic, "causally
> overseeable result" from the technicity definition).  That is why
> comparing software with music may not be convincing to the reader if not
> done with care.  People intuitively feel the difference between functional
> and esthetic, while they may not grasp the difference between mind and
> matter so clearly.
> 

