Re: [Patents] Software is not hardware, social sciences are not natural sciences.

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

>When I say software is not a technology I simply mean software is not
>a technology.

You say nothing here.  I see the word "technology" and look in my
dictionary, and see the definition "application of a science".  
Software is an application of the sciences of mathematics and physics.
The dictionary says nothing about forces of nature, physical objects,
etc. - just that technology/technical is in the realm of applied science.
Much like digital hardware is an application of the sciences of
mathematics and physics.

So if you are going to allow a patent on a specific application of
mathematics and physics in the form of a specific digital circuit,
given that you can convert the specific digital circuit into a specific
computer program, there is no reason not to treat them both as
equally patentable.  That is the message of US caselaw - applications
of software algorithms are patentable.  There is absolutely no logic
to deny such specific applications the possibility of patenting.

What you are complaining about is overall broad software patent claims
that look less like specific applications.  But that is a problem of
patent quality, for which I agree - and not only for software - most
patents (including those controlling nature, whatever th heel that
means) are too broad and don't cite enough non-patent prior art.

Greg