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

[Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>]

  The whole point is that the drill is a physical object and that the
invention pertains to new uses of a mechanical apparatus.
  This has always been patentable, and is totally unrelated to software.

Regarding computers, this of course no longer makes sense since the
whole point of a computer is to be freely programmable, unlike the
drill.

  Furthermore, assuming you would want to patent.  All that would be
patentable would be the actual use of the program, but not the program
itself, on whatever support, nor the distribution/sale of the program.
And since private use of a patented technique is permissible ... this
would concern a best business use of computers.

  But, in any case, the issue is an economic one, mostly ... as stated
by the US constitution (art. 8, clause 8), and in a more indirect way
by the French constitution.

The question is simply : given a domain of activity, and the economic,
technical (or other) characteristics of that domain, does some form of
IP guarding benefit innovation, economic growth and general welfare,
or does it rather impair it.  And accoding to the answer, a form of IP
guarding (including none) may be used.
  I have never known another justification for laws and regulations.

As far as I know, all economists agree that patenting software is
detrimental to general welfare.
  If you disagree, give me references.

Regarding the quality of patents, some people pretend that if we had
only good patent then conclusions could be different.  This raises
several questions:
  - what is a good patent (they do not agree on the definition)
  - how does one have only good patents.

There is strong evidence, both economic and technological, that the
probleme of bad patents can only get worse.  Whatever.
  In any case, until this problem has been solved, until bad patents
become the exception rather than the rule, we have to acknowledge
reality: there are lots of bad patents, and the time to adopt a system
that is recognized by all not to work properly with bad patents has
not come yet.

  You clean the Augias stables before you bring in more horses.


Bernard

Si ma tante en avait ...


On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 12:37:42PM -0500, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> 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

-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX