That anti-patent pamphlet I mentioned
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet
galactus at stack.nl
Mon Dec 16 17:27:22 UTC 2002
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
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.
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