Re:heh..not really(part 2) (Score 1)

"I can write a patent and get rights in the same invention described in the book."

No, you can not, unless you make the actual object.

You are wrong on this. It is not necessary to actually make the object to get it patented. I am 100% certain of this.

Mental processes are real in the sense of constructs, but they do not constitute physical objects.

A computer running software is a physical object, not a mental process.

of course a computer running software is a machine, and no one is saying that isn't patentable. When the EU-parliament admented the proposol, they said as much: that (when novel, non-obvious, etc.) machines, also when running software, could be patented. But NOT merely on the basis of the software. It's the machine itself that should be novel (etc.) thus, regardless of the software, though not excluding it.

Two identical computers running two different programs are different machines. They accept different inputs, process the data differently to produce different outputs. There's really no reason to require the computer part of the invention in the patent. If you look at patents on apple sorters, for example, you will find that they probably don't make any reference to a base or a frame or other supports that the gears and levers are mounted upon, yet all assple sorters will have such a base. Similarly, there is no reason to reference the underlying physical computer when patenting software.

All our discussion on this thread really does not go to the bottom of things, however. As others have pointed out, you do not have a natural 'right' on a patent.

I completely agree, and never intended to argue a natural "right" to a patent. The point of my first post was found in the title - software is more like a machine, than a book. The useful aspects of machines are protected by patents, so it makes more sense to use patents to protect software than it does to try to protect it with copyright, which is used for protecting the particular "expression" of an idea, but not the underlying idea itself.

A patent is a monopoly for a certain time, granted by the state. Monopolies are never a good thing, and the only reason why it is allowed in this case, is with the idea that it stimulates research and further innovation.

I disagree with your phrasing, but not your underlying point. Society has concluded that a monopoly granted for a limited time is good if it stimulates R&D, or causes the inventor to disclose that which he would otherewise not disclose.

With software-patents it becomes increasingly obvious (quite some research on this has been done, lately) that it does not serve this purpose at all, on the contrary. Thus, it logically follows there is no reason to create or give softwarepatents, and in fact, for the stated goal of stimulating progress in the field, they should be outright forbidden.

So we come back to the reasons for my original post.

1)Patents make more sense than copyright for protecting software since computers running software are more like machines than books.

2) The general opinion here seems to be that software patents are bad, so I'd like to know why people think that. Specifically, what do people think is different about software technology from all the other areas of technology covered by patents.

since you seem a logical person, I'm sure you also can see the logic in this reasoning, whether you personally feel entitled to a softwarepatent or not.

I don't believe in software patent "entitlement" any more than you. I'm not sure I even believe that software patents are good for society. I simply haven't made up my mind, and I'm looking for answers. I have read some of the studies that others here have pointed me to. If anyone reads this, who gave me links to such studies, I thank you.

However, the studies seem unconvincing to me. Here is what I see - first, there are several notorious cases of bad patents being issued. The Amazon one-click patent is famous. However, notice that patent is not being enforced, and IIRC, the Patent Office began to take a look at its validity. There are always problems in new technology when it first arrives at the patent office, and there are always mistakes made when patents are issued. I can point to the same problems with gene splicing, microelectronics, and other areas of technology. Those problems are quickly rectified by the system.

I am personally aghast at the poor quality of patent examination of software patents, but I think that is fixable, and indeed is well on its way to being improved.

I see comments/complaints about the so-called "patent thicket," but how does that differ from other areas of technology? I can find thousands of patents in any field. This is a general complaint about patents, not something specific to software. Society generally has found that patents work. It's easy to see the disadvantage of a monopoly, and much harder to see the advantages gained by encouraging R&D and open disclosure.

I see comments that big software companies (Microsoft) do not have many patents. This I attribute directly to the fact that software has been excessively protected by copyright. I must emphasize that I think software should receive some copyright protection for its expression, but its functional aspects, its user interface, its data structures, its flow chart, I would not protect unless they are worthy of patent protection. Microsoft should not be the monopoly supplier of the operating system for the world's computers simply becasue they were the default system selected when the world saw the advantages of a common OS. Others should be able to write a directly competing OS that functions the same, provided that they do not copy the limited "expression" found in the way MS's programmers chose to implement their functions.

If you got this far, thanks for reading.