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

[Flemming Bjerke <flem@bjerke.dk>]

Mandag 24 maj 2004 01:04 wrote Hartmut Pilch about Re: [Patents] Re: Re:  You 
have rights.. Software Patents are Illegal:
> I find a statement such as the above "only matter exists" and "information
> is matter that represents matter" very dubious.
>
> Why should only matter exist?

I did not say that only matter exists, because in our context I argue that we 
should avoid regressing to an ontology of Being. What I said was (for the 
sake of argument): Let us ASSUME that only matter exists ... Incidentally, in 
its more refined forms, materialistic philosophy is not easily repudiated. 
(See for instance: Maurice Merleau-Ponty: The Structure of Behavior. It is a 
phenomenological philosophy where life and mind are immanent in matter, and 
where behaviorism is thoroughly criticized.)
 ...........................
>
> > 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.
>
> You are confusing two issues:
>
> (1) which system is conducive to understanding the questions
>
> (2) which is helpful for "us" (some assumed group in this forum that
>     does not necessarily exist) for a certain PR strategy.
>
> Indeed nobody contradicts you on (2), but apparently you are feeling
> yourself that your arguments on (1) are weak.  

No, I have argued that your 3-world arguments on (1) are weak. Furthermore, I 
have argued that an ontology of mind and matter is only little conducive to 
understanding questions of software patenting. Finally, I find other 
theoretical discussions more conducive to understanding software and software 
patents, e.g. computer science.

> Otherwise you wouldn't be
> switching into (2) all the time.

My point is rather: Since philosophies of mind and matter (and Popper's is 
only one of these) tells us little about why software should not be patented, 
it is not a good idea to promote that kind of explanation, be it in a PR 
strategy or whereelse.

Flemming