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

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

> I agree. Actually, my point is that we should not base our arguments
against
> software patent on philosophical considerations about the relation between
> mind and matter.
>

At some point we have to answer the question "where should the line between
intellectual and industrial property lie". If we have no answer to give on
this issue or what the guiding principles should be then we give the patent
lobby ammunition to say that we cannot answer the questions that we are
posing.

The forces of nature doctrine can indeed be confusing if it becomes too
metaphysical. I prefer to try to clarify it by using the simple rule
solution

1)A a new, useful and non-obvious physical product or process has to come
into existence

2) This process can be an invention if it contains a new teaching of
"physical science"

The question of whether a computer program is matter is not the issue
regarding patentability. It's whether this physical process is truly new and
whether it teaches us a. In terms of computer programs there is no new
physical process .

> My point is that if you define technology as the use of natural forces for
> some purpose, software on a computer is nothing but technology. I.e. you
> can't argue against software patents by saying that since software is not
> matter, it is not technology. But, you may define technology so that it
does
> comprise handling of information. Cf. the EU-parlament's amendment art.
2a.
>

No but the teaching is not a physical one, thats all the forces of nature
doctrine means. There is no physical teaching of science in a computer
program, only lines of code executing on a computer as intended implementing
the ideas of an author- nor any new physical product or process.

Where do you think the line should be drawn as I'm always open to
suggestions if you feel that industrial property should be something else
other than a physical process. We can talk about metaphysics but I think
that most people understand the concept of physical reality in terms of
their day to day lives, even if not at a deep and meaningful scientific
level.

Sincerely,


Christian