[pp.int.general] philosophy vs. action

[Reinier Bakels]

> Sorry, I read "building" and I thought you were talking about building 
> things. No, no one has the right (human or alien) of a software patent. 
> Software is an intellectual work which deserves author's rights, because 
> software is in its very nature an implementation, not an idea, and patents 
> cover ideas.

I am fully aware of the problems with software patents, but this is 
incorrect. Copyright law never protects the underlying ideas (for software, 
that is even explicitly codified), so they leave something to be protected - 
or not to be protected, that is the argument.

How should I display a curve on a digital oscilloscope so that it looks like 
a smooth curve while it is actually composed of (rectangular) pixels? That 
was the invention of the first EPO software patent case (VICOM, 1986). Is 
this really software? Noo, its is basically mathematics, and conceivably it 
could be implemented in hard-wired circuitry as well. So should it be banned 
as "mathematics"? Many mechanical construction inventions are about 
geometrical configurations, i.e. essentially mathematics. Imho the only 
solution is to be very critical on the need for patents *in general*.

About language: you oppose terms like "copyright" and "intellectual 
property". Often patents are equated to ideas, but that is (also) incorrect. 
There are basically three tiers: idea->invention->realisation. Ideas that 
have not reached the stage of a true invention are NOT patentable. A true 
invention is "enabled", i.e. it can be applied (executed) by any "person 
skilled in the art". But atmittedly there is a (strong) tendency to igmore 
this basic principle, and to grant patents even for *problem statements* 
instead of their solutions!

Finally, did you know that in the US even proposals have been made to patent 
"storylines"? That would fill the gap l;eft open by copyright that does not 
protect ideas but only expressions. Proponents argue that such patents 
benefit cultural diversity as well, because they prevent the same theme to 
be covered again and again by books or films, ad nauseam.

Copyright theory talks about an "idea/expression dichotomy". Which is 
tricky. There is a tendency to expand the copyright domain into the sphere 
of ideas, e.g. television program formats. This is another field where PP 
can reach short-term results.

reinier