Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents
From: Russell McOrmond <>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:37:54 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Simo Sorce wrote:

> Another humble opinion on the hardware vs software debate:
> It does not make sense to draw a line between hardware and software.
> The right line is between controllable forces of nature vs. logic.

  The problem is (and this is taken from the European forums), that there
are those who state that since logic in electronics "controls the flow of
electrons" in a logic gate that applications of logic (as opposed to
unused logic?) should be patentable.  This suggests that the
non-patentability of logic and mathematics is just a subset of the utility
question, not a question of statutory subject matter.

  I think this "logic" is patently nonsense, but it is the logic that many
in the legal profession seem to be living under.  This is why I don't
think legal analysis will do the trick as patent lawyers and patent agents
will always have a very strong special interest in unlimited
patentability, and will manipulate language in legacy laws to get what
they want.  It requires people outside of the field of patent law to amend
the law to try to mirror changing economic circumstances.

 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <> 
 Have you, your family, your friends (, your enemies) signed the
 Petition to the Canadian Parliament for Users' Rights in Copyright?