Re: [Patents] "Betrayal of physics"

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> 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.

I second Simo's criticism.

We can not accept any software patents but we can, like the US Supreme
Court in the Diamond v. Diehr decision of 1981 and the German Federal
Court of Justice in the ABS decision of 1980, be tolerant in permitting
debatable "wholistic approaches" which assume that forces of nature /
transformation of matter were part of the solution that was patented.

This means that we can be tolerate strange situations where we are allowed
to program our car and publish/sell the ABS/navigation software, but not
allowed to drive/sell the resulting car.

With a sharp "differential approach" (also called "core theory" /
"Kerntheorie"), we wouldn't get into this situation because it could be
shown that the ABS calculation rule is merely a solution within a known
abstract model.  Although we intellectually prefer this sharp approach,
we have some room for compromise here.

> What is needed is a simple and robust way of distinguishing
> between real CIIs and software-innovations. 

Real "CIIs" are software innovations.
There is no difference, there never was, see

        http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/kinv/

> Anything that's too complicated (such as natural forces...) will be
> deconstructed to nonsense by the EPO hordes of lawyers.

Again I second Simo.

Is your reluctance to defend the forces of nature doctrine somehow founded 
in your physics expertise? 

Are you backing down on this crucial point, where your input is most 
needed, because you believe that Greg is somehow right?

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

The real simple guideline is:

(1) No program claims
(2) no claims to anything that can be described by a program claim

That is exactly how the EPO Guidelines of 1978 put it.

The debates about forces of nature and wholistic vs differential approach
then come in only as a secondary theory.

There is now way to evade these debates.  Economic arguments don't help at
this level.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
330,000 votes 3000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/