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

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

Bernard writes:

>Yes, but there may be invention inasmuch as the program is doing
>something specific with the drill related to the drill properties.
>Hence you can patent this specific way of using the drill as specified
>by the program (which is not the program itself, or "as such").

I hope Bernard realizes that his example is what underlies the logic of
US caselaw (such as Benson and Alappat) that provides for software
patenting - you have to be patenting a specific application, such as
this new drill application.

>However, the program itself, independant of the drill, cannot be
>covered by patenting.  It is just an abstract object, which you can
>freely use in another context, not related to the operation of a
>drill.

Again this is the same as US caselaw.  If you describe a new algorithm
in a patent, and someone else figures out a way to APPLY the algorithm
in a way not described in the patent, this new person is free to use
the algorithm in this other context.  I am glad to see Bernard so
supportive of the US view of software patenting.

Greg Aharonian