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

[Roland Orre <orre@nada.kth.se>]

On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 01:14, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> >When I say software is not a technology I simply mean software is not
> >a technology.

Software as such is not a technology, software and mathematics is the
way to implement technology. Take the well known Matrix scenario for
instance. Inside the world you have physical laws and technology which
are implemented by software simulations following certain rules.

A technology is something which has builtin constraints. Software has no
limitations.
        Roland

> 
> You say nothing here.  I see the word "technology" and look in my
> dictionary, and see the definition "application of a yscience".  
> 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
>