The Importance of Potential

["Christian Beauprez" <beauprez@beauprez.fsnet.co.uk>]

Hi everyone,

 

Have just been reviewing the very interesting points made on the issue of what seperates a literary work from an invention. I believe that I have found a common thread in what is being said, and it relates both to Erik and Hartmut's observations.

 

Taking an example adapted from Hartmut's instruction manual I think we can demonstrate where the difference between these fields lie.

 

e.g. A DIY manual that contains a new method for laying a carpet with minimal fuss.

 

The manual has the "potential further effect" that the EPO claims computer programs do. (a potential further effect that enables someone to solve a technical problem) This potential effect is not enough however to make it an invention. (To my knowledge although I should check the EPO on this!)

 

A method on it's own does not contain a "physical" or "industrial" performance until it is performed. In the case of the manual, the potential is realised by a person. In the case of a program, by a machine.

 

Any thoughts on this?