Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 12:46:43PM +0100, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
I don't think I said that. Patents should be available for all technical inventions, and I believe it makes no difference whether the invention is based on software. But a purely mental technique, or a method of doing business should not be patentable.
The problem is that the patentability of all pure mental tewchniques is a direct consequence of allowing any software patents, because it is not possible to draw the distinction you want to draw. The term "Technical effect" is without real meaning.
It is impossible to give a clear definition of "technical", that is true. But it is also impossible to give a clear definition of many other legal terms, like "reasonable doubt", and most constitutional rights.
I personally believe that all technical inventions should be patentable, and that it should not matter whether software is involved. And I also believe that the criterion should not be whether a novel controlled use of forces of nature is involved, but rather whether the invention as a whole exhibits a technical effect. Even if the effect is not novel, or does not learn you anything about a new use of natural forces.
You are repeating that you only want software with a "technical effect" should be patentable, but you keep ignoring that the term "technical effect" is just pure bullshit, to put it bluntly. There is no software without a "technical effect". So the consequence would be that all software is patentable.
We should ignore the normal interaction between hardware and software when determining the technical effect. If the only technical effects you can identify are "there are now electrical currents running" or "the computer does something new", that's not enough.
And you said it yourself. You said you believe that every patent attorney can introduce a technical effect into a claim.
Every *competent* patent attorney :) But yes, this is almost always possible. But I also think most of such claims will be of very little value (very limited because of lots of limitations to establish the technical effect) and they will almost always be obvious (because the technical effect obtained is very simple and not surprising).
It's interesting to note by the way that the Japan's patent act defines a patentable invention as a highly advanced creation of a technical idea utilizing a law of nature, and they allow claims to computer programs by themselves. So apparently in Japan creating a computer program uses a force of nature.
I am not familiar with japanese law. I can not even read japanese, so I have no way at all to tell what their law says.
http://www.law.washington.edu/casrip/CompIP/JPExcerpt.html http://www.lise.jp/jplenglish.html
However, I have heard that no law actually allows software or logic patents, and that it is just the respective patent offices making up the practice.
I can find nothing in Japanese patent law that explicitly forbids patents on computer programs, as such or otherwise. There is nothing on "logic" either, although there is the explicit requirement for "the highly advanced creation of technical ideas by which a law of nature is utilized".
Kind regards,
Arnoud Engelfriet