That anti-patent pamphlet I mentioned

[Niall Douglas]

On 15 Dec 2002 at 14:46, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:

> > Ok. I am not sure whether I would be "pro-software-patent".
> > I think I'm somewhere in the middle, because I believe a
> > device with new behavior should be patentable even if the
> > behavior is caused by software - as long as the device is
> > technical and the new behavior is novel and nonobvious.
> > New nontechnical behavior is by definition obvious.
> 
> There is no middle.  You will have to take a position on either side,
> if you want or not.  By supporting patents on programs "with a
> technical effect", you are supporting the move to allow patents on all
> programs, algorithms, all logic patents and patents on business
> methods.  You said this is not what you want, but this is what will
> happen.  After the "technical effect" idea, as weird as it is, is
> through, nobody will ask you again about what you thought it might
> mean.

I think it very unfair to say there is no middle. Of course there is 
a middle, I occupy one myself. Why is it people have to see things in 
black and white?

I personally feel Arnoud being an intelligent guy has noticed that 
software patents are severely flawed. Quite likely he doesn't quite 
know why, but he's open-minded enough to admit his idiosyncracies on 
the matter. Instead of saying "either you're with us or against us", 
you should be pointing out the logic errors in his argument in a 
constructive manner.

> If you don't like software patent, say "logic patent".  It means the
> same thing here.

Software is not logic. I have said this many times but instead of 
people challenging me on this, they appear to be pretending I'm not 
saying it :(

Cheers,
Niall