That anti-patent pamphlet I mentioned
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet
galactus at stack.nl
Mon Dec 16 17:20:09 UTC 2002
Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 15:40, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > For me, the economic argument is simply "software can be used
> > to imitate hardware, so if software is unpatentable I can get
> > around patents by simply using software instead". This is
> > unfair to patent holders and hence software that imitates
> > hardware should be protected by the patent.
> So you said, in a former email, that if you find another way to solve a
> problem it should not be covered by the patent, now that we find another
> way to solve the problem (through software) that it must be covered.
If the solution is different, it's not covered by the claim.
The fact that the solution is in software does not make the
> By the way if it is "simple", then probably the "competent" patent
> attorney has already covered it, hasn't she?
True, but according to you the software variation should be
excluded from my patent even if I mention it in the patent.
> But the problem is exactly in this statement:
> "This is unfair to patent holders"
> Patents are not here to make patent holders a living or made them rich,
> they are there to promote innovation when this method is more a benefit
> for the community then the economical and ethical damages it can make.
And how do you think they promote innovation? By providing
a fair amount of protection so inventors are encouraged to
do innovative research. If a minor variation is enough to
get around my patent, I'm not going to bother inventing.
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
More information about the Discussion