Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 03:34:30PM +0100, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
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.
Now, come on. It's a pretty weak argument, even as a defense, and much weaker to actively support a position. First, many terms are quite clear. "Killing" for example is pretty easy to understand. "Stealing" too.
Right, yet there is a definition in the law for what "stealing" is (the unauthorized taking away of an object for the purpose of keeping it, in Dutch law).
So is the term "technical invention", based on the concept of "forces of nature" which you consider to be so antiquated and old-fashioned.
Indeed. It's antiquated, old-fashioned and does not reflect today's society.
I can give you another definition of "invention": a practical realization of technology, wherein technology means an application of a natural science.
The forces-of-nature concept was introduced into patent law to restrict patents to technical inventions, rather than new abstract and logical ideas.
No, it restricts patents to a small subset of technical inventions. *That's* the problem.
Anyway, I've snipped the rest of your mail as I believe I have addresses this in my other response to you.
Kind regards,
Arnoud Engelfriet