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

[Flemming Bjerke <flem@bjerke.dk>]

Søndag 23 maj 2004 19:04 wrote Christian Beauprez about Re: [Patents] Re: Re: 
 
You have rights.. Software Patents are Illegal:
> > 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.

I agree and find these arguments (and Simo's too) strong because they do not 
depend on some dubious mind-matter ontology. 

Let us assume that only matter exists. Then, information, including science 
as 
well as software, is matter that represents matter and laws of matter. And 
your point 1) and 2) above will apply. 

You could argue similarly from an idealistic point of view.

What is needed in these arguments to formulate the forces of nature doctrine, 
is a concept of representation. We need not a dubious ontology of Being. We 
just need the experience that representation in fact exists and works.

If someone thinks that information as such ;-) should be patentable, we 
cannot 
say that this should not be the case due to some universal truth of Being. 
Nor can we, with reference to some ontology, tell anyone that technology 
cannot be defined so that it includes information technology, including 
software. Instead, we can explain why patenting of information is deeply 
problematic for our society.

Flemming