Article "Software patents should include source code"

[Matthias Kirschner]

Joinup has a summary from discussion about software patents:
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/software-patents-should-include-source-code

Next week I will be in a panel discussion with the European Patent
Office at Cebit, and I am interested in your opinion about the article.

Regards,
Matthias

[Carsten Agger]

Post by Matthias Kirschner
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/software-patents-should-include-source-code
Next week I will be in a panel discussion with the European Patent
Office at Cebit, and I am interested in your opinion about the article.

My opinion:

It *might* raise standards if software patents were to include source
code and *might* reduce the totally frivolous patent applications, but I
think Mirko Boehm's argument misses the point that software should never
be patented at all. The argument is the usual, which is actually also
the reason why it was traditionally excluded from patentability:
Software is *thought*, it's ultimately an expression of abstract
mathematical ideas, and you can't patent mathematical ideas.

Furthermore, I disagree with Boehm's statement that: "The most-recent
ground-breaking software development was Quicksort. It was invented in
1960."

Maybe in terms of algorithmics, but then there's still the RSA algorithm
and a number of other things. But all the Internet protocols (including
email and the Web) and graphical user interface paradigms might also be
considered some sort of software breakthrough, and they're definitely
post 1960. :-)

I thus agree entirely with Carlo Piana's statements near the end of the
article.

Best,
Carsten


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140303/5d7911ff/attachment.pgp>

[Matthias Kirschner]

Post by Carsten Agger
Furthermore, I disagree with Boehm's statement that: "The most-recent
ground-breaking software development was Quicksort. It was invented in
1960."

About this part. Have you seen: "The Most Important Software
Innovations" by David A. Wheeler.
http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html

Regards,
Matthias

[Carsten Agger]

Post by Matthias Kirschner

Post by Carsten Agger
Furthermore, I disagree with Boehm's statement that: "The most-recent
ground-breaking software development was Quicksort. It was invented in
1960."

About this part. Have you seen: "The Most Important Software
Innovations" by David A. Wheeler.
http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html

No, thanks, that looks like a really interesting overview!




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20140303/209f6245/attachment.pgp>

[Xavi Drudis Ferran]

Post by Matthias Kirschner
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/software-patents-should-include-source-code
Next week I will be in a panel discussion with the European Patent
Office at Cebit, and I am interested in your opinion about the article.
Regards,
Matthias

I know many people don't understand or agree with this basic
epistemology, but
software is immaterial. It's more or less what they mean when they say
it's "thought".
What software is has nothing to do with any physical force, magnitude or
matter.
The same that any software says (and therefore does, because a program
is just an
explanation on how to solve a problem with a computer) is maintained if
you change
all physical details of support or computer running it.

A patent is a deal whereas society (we all) give away our freedom to
commerce on
an invention in exchange for information about an invention (that
otherwise we
assume ther would not exist or would not be public). You keep the
exclusive use of your
invention if you give away all relevant information on the invention.

Inventions have never in Europe included software. Inventions are
physical, material,
are methods of using forces of nature to your benefits. If you try to
force software
to be regarded as an invention you reach a fundamental contradiction,
because
software is information, you can't make the invention be information, so
now the deal is :
You keep the exclusive use your information if you give away all
relevant information on
the information.

The contradiction appears clearly. Either you publish the relevant
information (source open)
and don't patent or you patent without disclosing anythign meaningful
Software patents will never have full disclosure . The patent system is
inconsistent applied
to software. Economic or political opinion does not matter. It's
essentially flawed, not
amtter anyone's colorful ideas.