[pp.int.general] philosophy vs. action

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> 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.
Not true, software patents cover ideas instead of true inventions, and 
that's one of PIRATA's argument to oppose software patents -seems not to 
be one of yours-.
> 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.
That's wrong: they don't patent mathematics, nor mathematical tools, but 
specific applications of those tools -others can give those tools 
different usage; if you allow patenting the tool, it's not allowed 
anymore (thus innovation is blocked)-. You shouldn't patent the usage of 
copper or PVC for pipes, at most should patent an specific alloy of 
copper that, with an specific pipe design, can offer specific features 
-and others may use different alloys with different pipe designs for 
different usages-; can you find reasonable to patent the pipe? or the 
copper (understanding /copper/ as any copper alloy) pipe?

One of things stated by PIRATA is that you cannot go that abstract -and 
specially not if you have blocking rights on others' usage of that 
patent-, otherwise you prevent innovation, thus going against the 
patents premise. Actually, coming back to the pipe example, there is no 
innovation in a mere pipe, as pipes exist in nature -i.e., they're not 
an invention anymore-; thus, you have to bring something new, to really 
innovate, to claim anything.
> Imho the only solution is to be very critical on the need for patents 
> *in general*.
Not all pirate parties are against patents /in general/; some of us are 
against specific patents /in particular,/ and against the overall patent 
system. The difference is that some pirate parties aim for change, while 
others aim for abolition -and all those viewpoints fit in the current 
drafts, as anyway we all agree on not accepting the current state of 
things-.
> 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.
Of course patents must not be equated to ideas, though I'm not the one 
who does it, but certain countries: double click is not an invention, 
but an idea; shopping cart is not an invention, but an idea. All those 
examples and many more are not inventions, and however they are allowed 
as software patents in certain countries.

How would may be acceptable a future patent about software for using 
your PC desktop with your brain waves? However, that's what they aim to, 
look at that OpenOffice vs MS Office quarrel (article both in Spanish & 
English)

http://josesoriano.com.ar/2007/05/18/open-office-responde-a-ms/

All that "/I was the first to make a word processor, so no other can do 
the same without my authorisation/" stuff is pointless. MicroSoft made a 
word processor, hurray! Other companies do the same, so -as long as 
those companies doesn't plagiarize MicroSoft's code, but merely offer 
simmilar features- now compete, Redmond guys.
> 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*!
That's a critic to the patent system which I agree with; however, I 
think it's not quite related to what you stated earlier.


                                                                                         
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                         
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                    
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman