Re: [Patents] "Betrayal of physics"

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> Aside from the fact that I think the "mind/matter" phrase, while venerable,
> actually doesn't work well, I think that the point about ideal abstraction
> is the most important one to make.

"Mind" is confusing wording, because it implies subjectivity.  The
borderline which we are interested in is not subjective-objective but
rather abstract entity vs denoted material reality.

Within the patent system, the mind/matter conception, no matter how you
phrase it, be it in the DE ABS 1980 or US Diamond v. Diehr 1981 wording,
is as straightforward to apply today as it was back then.

When looking at patents, you can easily place them in one of the two
categories.  It's much easier than determining non-obviousness.

Even if in some cases there are difficulties, these difficulties are are
unrelated to the information theory & physics debates about which GregBot
keeps reporting.  

The main difficulty is not in distinguishing mind/data/abstraction from
matter but in determining the scope of the solution:  are the forces of
nature part of it or are they "post-solution activity" (US wording), i.e.
do they only "come into play after the solution has been established"  
(DE wording).

Also, how you analyse friction in terms of "forces of nature" is
unimportant.  The term "forces of nature" is merely used because it is
established in physics and these forces imply causality and repeatability,
both important features of technical inventions.  If the term "forces of 
nature" really led to confusion (not just artificial confusion created by 
GregBot & Co), one could rephrase it without any loss.

-- 
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/