Re: [Patents] You have rights.. Software Patents are Illegal

["Jacek Gancarson Eurofresh" <jacek.gancarson@eurofresh.se>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernard Lang"
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:58:45PM +0200, Flemming Bjerke wrote:
> > Søndag 16 maj 2004 13:36 wrote Bernard Lang about Re: [Patents] You have
> > rights.. Software Patents are Illegal:
> > > I think Flemming meant by "work" the fact that one can define software
> > > patenting within the existing legal system.
> > >
> > > The issues are more :
> > >
> > > - does it work in the way patenting is intended, i.e. to support
> > > innovation, economic growth and/or public welfare.
> > > (social contract)
> > >
> > > - is it compatible with the traditional view, undisputed a few years
> > > ago, that ideas should not be owned.
> > >
> > Exactly, I did not mean that software patents works well according to
the
> > purpose of promoting innovation. But, probably, they work quite well if
the
> > purpose is to enhance the power of a handful of corporations at the
expense
> > of innovation and freedom.
> >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > another point is that the European council wants to patent programs as
> > > products. And that actually means the abstraction, independantly of
> > > its material representation. That means non-material, whatever
> > > arguments you may have about the representation of thoughts.
> >
> > A brillant point, and a bizarre example of the all-pervasive EPO-logic:
> > Because software on a machine may be technique, ideas themselves may be
so
> > too. But, this is also a consequence of the unique nature of software:
> > Exactly the same signs that express a performative meaning to a human
being,
>
> it does not have to be "performative" to a human being in order to
> lead to a performance in the computer.
>    That is the whole issue of declarative programming.  A program can
> be a description of what you want, not how to get it.  It can be
> typically a bunch of equations.
>
That is a reson of the Software Patents Collapse: EPO and USPTO have made
*an enter of the beauty*, that means they met software development of
90thies in US and worldwide with a very weak brain power. I agree that even
treaties did not provide clear guidelines because the  whole matter was new.

If examinators have not clear and high quality checklist wether a given
software application is an invention, they could issue even very crazy
patents in this field. And it really happened! That is as I understand
German goverment position now: Not allow ourself to get mad! Let's further
anlize the process of massive use of software (Particullary this used in the
global network) because current legislation proposals are still not ready to
solve our problems.

>>>   Now, what is the technical character of a bunch of equations ?
>
It  is again the  problem of lack of  software related interpretation of
patent protection in the filed of software. If the whole process is really
new and unique it is the obligation of the applicant to provide  exact and
real means of process execution.

> The probleme is that abstract concepts like programming are a lot more
> elusive than lawyers can understand, or want to.
>
>
I would express nearly the same in a slighlty different: There is not enough
understanding of software position in technology development in general, to
legitimate elaborated legal punishment praxis of the pionieers (as Ford
Oxaal for example)

> > can in a computer perform physical processes, which for a human realises
the
> > performance expressed.
> >
> > Perhaps we should think of computers as unconscious processes in a
somewhat
> > similar sense as in Freud's later works where sexuality were less
important.
> > The computer might be understood as an extension of (a part of) our
> > unconscious processes. At least, this thought illustrates how terrifying
> > patenting of software is: The best way of controlling society is by
> > controlling its unconsciousness.
> >
Yes but we still need some symbols to rationalize our unconsciousness in the
sphere of software. A network software Freud is badlly wanted!!!

> > > It is a platonistic entity.
> > >
Well, Paltons network was not global;-)


Regards
Jacek Gancarson
www.eu3d.com