Re: Gregnews: US report proves EP lies

Russell McOrmond wrote:
> 
> PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> >
> > There seems to be an ambiguity in what terms like "technology" and
> > "engineering" mean.
> 
>    I also believe there is ambiguity of what "software" is as well.  Is
> it a technology itself, or is it a series of logical instructions used
> to control technology?


ALL WRITEWARE IS TECHNOLOGY.  AFTER ALL, ALL HARDWARE IS
TECHNOLOGY.


Paper, ink, pens and printers are technology.  If you invent a
new kind of ink, utensil or medium to write with, party on with
the patentability!

But what you say with writing is not patentable.  What the
writing *represents* is not patentable.

Software *represents* pure logical instructions.  Doesn't matter
what kind of technology you use to express it -- if it's being
used to give instructions to a logic processor, then those
instructions are not patentable.

Call a gate array software.  Call it hardware.  Call a new means
of providing instructions to a logic processor technology.  Go
ahead and patent that medium.  But if it's providing instructions
to a separate generic logic processor, it's expressing a computer
program, and that's not patentable.


Seth



>    I've had this conversation with friends who are in "software
> engineering" programs at University.  I suggest to them that since
> software is more a social science than a natural science, the field of
> software doesn't really belong in engineering at all.   Maybe some
> combination of a math-arts degree?  If you are a follower of Lessig like
> I am, you might believe that software is best analyzed as a form of
> privately authored law -- with law still being an arts degree.
> 
>    At least the "computer science" degree I took was more appropriately
> vague as to what type of science the software component was.
> 
>    I guess to me that we need to restore patent law, a form of economic
> public policy, to being analyzed as economic public policy.  The
> wordsmithing of extremists like Greg are largely irrelevant to the
> discussion of whether the existence of patents in the field of software
> helps or harms innovation.  Only economic studies are useful for this,
> and pretty much every study I have read suggests they are a chill and
> not an incentive for innovation.
> 
>    Other subject matter will be different, so comparing the entirely
> unrelated field of computer hardware to software to indicate something
> about patentability is just "social engineering".
> 
> --
>   Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
>   1800+ Canadians oppose Bill C-60 which protects antiquated Recording,
>   Motion Picture and "software manufacturing" industries from change...
>   http://KillBillC60.ca    Sign--> http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/

-- 

RIAA is the RISK!  Our NET is P2P!
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.