Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!umich!yale!cmcl2!adm!news
From: SYKLB%NASAGISS.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu ( Ken Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX-WIZARDS Digest  V10#100
Message-ID: <24002@adm.BRL.MIL>
Date: 27 Jul 90 20:49:12 GMT
Sender: news@adm.BRL.MIL
Lines: 41

> From: Michael Rowan <mtr@geech.ai.mit.edu>
> Subject: Patents

> Despite the fact that they are built from simple parts, computer
> programs are incredibly complex.  The program with fifty thousand lines
> probably has a hundred thousand parts, making it as complex as an
> automobile, though far easier to design.

But can it take me to the country on the weekend? :-)

More seriously, "an automobile" was chosen since it is, conveniently
for the purpose of the argument, a "high-ticket item".  Aren't there
other electronic/mechanical devices that are similarly complex but
less expensive?  Perhaps a stereo receiver?

> Software can be easily and cheaply copied.

So can the books on the "bestseller" lists.  But not legally :-(

> Thus, a program which computes prime numbers is a piece of software.  A
> mechanical device designed specifically to perform the same computation
> would not be software, since the mechanical device might fail if it were
> not properly oiled, and would have to be constructed out of physical
> objects.

The software could fail also, for numerous reasons, including, but not
limited to, changes in the "surrounding system environment", e.g.,
operating system upgrades, timing errors (introduced perhaps by addition
of a new peripheral, or by degradation of existing hardware), and even
"programming errors", which your "ideal" program is certainly free of,
although my "real" programs are not.  The terms "software maintenance"
and "system maintenance" spring to mind.

Really, my only point is that it's not clear to me that software is
intrinsically different, vis-a-vis patentability, than hardware.

BTW, this thread should probably be moved somewhere *other* than
the Unix-wizards list, no?

* Ken Bell (SYKLB@NASAGISS or SYKLB@NASAGISS.GISS.NASA.GOV) 212-578-5545 *
Acknowledge-To: <SYKLB@NASAGISS>