Re: [Patents] "Betrayal of physics"

[Carsten Svaneborg <zqex@mpipks-dresden.mpg.de>]

On Thursday 08 July 2004 16:24, Hartmut Pilch wrote:
> Whether or not innovation is spurred by a patent is difficult
> to assess, and no judge can be asked to assess it.
I fully agree. However, the it's on the wrong level.

The real level is how can the patent laws and practice
be designed and feedback-controlled to attain optimal
innovation within the domain of e.g. software innovation.
Neither "energy consumption" or "mind/matter" are relevant
for the policy of patent law design.

This is something that can be assessed by economists.
The patent offices (like all true believers in doctrine) seems
rather hesitant in actually trying to assess the truth of their
beliefs, as the result might be a surprise.


I think one of the major problems about the directive is that
"computer-implemented inventions" at one end is a business
method running on a PC, and in the other end software
controlling ABS breakes.

What is needed is a simple and robust way of distinguishing
between real CIIs and software-innovations. Anything that's too
complicated (such as natural forces...) will be deconstructed
to nonsense by the EPO hordes of lawyers.

A simple guideline is that software-innovation, is functionality that
can be transferred as information through a communication line.

-- 
  mvh. Carsten Svaneborg