Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents
From: Ben Tilly <btilly@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 17:59:24 -0800

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:59:44 +0100, Simo Sorce <simo.sorce@xsec.it> wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 19:13, Ben Tilly wrote:
> 
> > No, I don't assume that.  I'm saying that if you have innovated,
> > then you have the opportunity to obtain a valuable patent.
> 
> Value is an incentive to get more patents, not to make more innovation.

But (at least in theory) to get more patents you'll need to do more
innovating.

[...]
> > I have no clue what you mean by "controllable forces of nature".
> >
> > Is electricity such a force?
> 
> Of course. Electromagnetism laws.
> Controllable forces of nature are defined by physical laws.
> 
> Said that you must find out new ways to manipulate physical laws to have
> a valid patent. Software being abstract will never achieve that by
> itself, only the combination of software and physical devices can.

In a new piece of software, electricity flows in a different pattern
than it did before.  Is this not a new way to manipulate
controllable forces of nature?

Yes, this is a somewhat ludicrous interpretation.  But I have as
much trouble in interpreting the language so that it covers
something like US patent 1,219,881 (the zipper - an invention
that literally took decades to develop).

Cheers,
Ben