Re: [Patents] "Betrayal of physics"

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

On Thursday 08 July 2004 18:40, Hartmut Pilch wrote:
>> Anything that's too complicated (such as natural forces...) will be
>> deconstructed to nonsense by the EPO hordes of lawyers.
> Is your reluctance to defend the forces of nature doctrine somehow
> founded in your physics expertise?

No it's simple retorics. If something is complicated to explain, then
it's 90% wrong from a retorical POV. The patent office can just
claim "we know what we are doing, don't worry, we've been doing
it for hundreds of years" if asked. We are fighting an uphill battle.

EPO is going to deconstruct anything the final directive says that
they don't like, we can not avoid that. However, politicians, economists
and journalists aware of software patenting practices can keep a
check on the practice (with our help). The legal system and national
judges should have been doing this, but clearly they have failed, and
since the EPO BoA caselaw is so obtuse, nobody in their right mind
can contest it, even if they wanted.

Conclusion: even if the parliament ends up prohibiting patenting
of software, EPO is going to find some loophole or deconstruction,
and it's back to business in a few years time, when people have
forgotten about it. After all EPO is just serving their customers,
who wants patents granted on software.

Hence the stable solution is not to create the optimal legislation
which is complicated to avoid loopholes, but to create legislation
that create optimal means of checking and correcting the practice,
such that EPO can't grant patents on software innovations.


Regarding the "forces of nature" criterion anybody knows what
friction is and how it works, and you can make inventions getting
rid of it (lubricants), or increasing it (glue/tape). Try to explain
friction on the basis of the four fundamental forces! Basically
you are in deep trouble.


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

No. He's clearly wrong. However, i don't find philosophical
Mind/Matter arguments very convincing. And "forces of nature" is complicated.

My input is to spending inordinate amounts of time on
http://gauss.bacon.su.se/sql/

The goal is to create a community site that enables and supports
monitoring EPOs software patentings practices, like GrokLaw.

-- 
  Mvh. Carsten Svaneborg