Re: You have rights.. Software Patents are Illegal

Dear Phil,

>A program is more than just a sequence of deterministic statements. It is


A computer program, according to every dictionary I have read is
"A series of instructions that a computer can interpret and execute"

>the result of design and testing, in the same way that a car is. The
>internals of a computer follow laws, they just aren't the laws of physics,
>that's all.

But inventions ARE supposed to be  new teachings of physics not reasoning
and logic.

e.g. the light bulb, the television, the radio.

>A computer program is a virtual machine in a virtual
>environment, and those environments are becoming more sophisticated all the
>time, as are the machines that work within them.

There is no "machine" within them, only computer program (literary works
under law)

Computer programs do not realise any new teaching of physics- they are
instructions to a pure mathematical machine .
Either we are going to subject computer programs to patent law or to
copyright. There is no way they can be a literary work and an invention at
the same time. The "inventor" can abuse the authors rights to profit from
their own  work.

e.g. a method and system for financial transactions over a network:

This could include :  Paypal, Worldpay, NOCHEX  any system that uses credit
cards, a network and two terminals  etc. etc. etc.
 these "innovations" contain nothing but software calculating and storing
data- there is no new physical process happening, only a computer program
running on a computer as intended .

Imagine for a moment that I had written one of the transaction programs. How
can my rights as an author not unfairly suffer if the holder of the "system
patent"  describing broadly a "transaction system" could extort money from
me because I have apparently re-created his concept without any knowledge of
it?


 > If a new vehicle streamlining formula is invented
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is where it all goes wrong. A "formula" can never be an invention under
patent law . Could Einstein own the law of relativity as an invention?
It took observations of natural forces and imagination, but the answer is
still no. Patents are for physical inventions.

>by testing different
> shapes inside a simulated wind tunnel, is that patentable? In theory the
> whole test could have been done with pen and paper and no experimentation
at
> all. Simulated testing, if it works, is as valid as real-world testing.
>

The invention would not be "theoretical or virtual simulation" it would be
an actual physical prototype generated by observation/simulation of natural
foces. So although the physical product could be subject to patent, a
theorum based on observation and calculation is not.

(e.g. car body with improved aerodynamics)= Patentable

i.e. simulation of natural forces using calculation. = Unpatentable, but you
may own the expression of the work (just not the concept- it is pure
information).

Otherwise people could own mathematical theorums and scientific discoveries
provided that they were the result of experimentation under patent law.

If we don't specify that a new physical process has to materialise, then
ideas within calculation and reasoning  become inventions (monopolies),
authors can be sued for code that they write themselves, even if they have
no knowledge of a patent- this is illegal under international law. A
computer program falls under the copyright system, not sui-generis or patent
law as chips do, and countries have obligations to software authors.

Sincerely,

Christian