http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/02/microsoft_v_att_2.html

“MR. OLSON [For Microsoft]: The ‘580 patent is a program, as I understand it, that’s married to a computer, has to be married to a computer in order to be patented.
JUSTICE SCALIA: You can’t patent, you know, on-off, on-off code in the abstract, can you?
MR. OLSON: That’s correct, Justice Scalia.
JUSTICE SCALIA: There needs to be a device.
MR. OLSON: An idea or a principle, two plus two equals four can’t be patented. It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device.”

So, for example, in Germany there was this concept of “natural forces” – anything which revealed new insight into the physical world was patentable, which is close to what you’re saying.

But these aren’t bright lines. One early patent was that of a rubber curing process (turning the liquid into a solid, basically). There is a way you can cure rubber which is better than older methods, but which requires precise (= computer) temperature control. So, the computer-controlled rubber curing process became patentable.

Now, in theory, the abstract stuff isn’t patentable in most places – methods, games, algorithms, etc. were all traditionally non-patentable. But those things are rarely useful in abstract, and it’s the context of those things – their actual uses – which makes them arguably patentable.

To put it succinctly, it’s not what the thing is made out of, but what the result is which makes something patentable. There’s an extremely philosophical argument in there, but that’s basically the problem.

How does intangible, mathematical expressions figure into patents?

If the system resorts to a non dedicated appliance, that is, when you turn off all power to a computer (forgetting RAM traces and semi volatile memory), doesn’t the algorithm become moot at this point?

Doesn’t it then becomes a publication if it must be read from storage for the system to get back to a known state?

That “as such” clause is the root of the problem, because it’s a matter of interpretation. The current judiciary has the interpretation that if there is some kind of technical contribution – a computer runs faster, for example – then it’s patentable. In general, though, it’s relatively tough to get a “pure” software patent (but obviously possible, as many companies demonstrate).

http://www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?id=1331

““Does Microsoft intend to continue to break the law by filing software patents in South Africa?” This was the question Derek Keats of the University of the Western Cape asked Microsoft national technical officer, Potlaki Maine, in an open debate held at Freedom to Innovate South Africa’s workshop on software and business method patents last Friday.

“Maine’s responded that all Microsoft’s patents had been filed through government channels and were completely legal. Keats retorted that although Microsoft had found a gap in the process of filling patents, they were still guilty of breaking the law.

“This issue summed up the the problem FTISA wants to address: although software patents are not allowed in South Africa, this is not being enforced and software patents are still being filed.

“South African law does not allow for patents on computer programs (section 25 (2) of the Patents Act No. 57 of 1978). Yet the problem is that, as a non-examining country, the patent office does not check the validity of the patent. The patent office only checks that payment has been made and that the correct forms are filled out. For this reason, software patents slip through the process illegally.“

If it’s illegal, by law, to submit a patent, where software patents is not legal, shouldn’t the submitter be fined by the judge for filing the patent in the first place?

Monopolies, like microsoft, apple, etc; want developers. They have plenty in their own “backyard” yet they do not want to pay the developer properly, that is, they want the developer to work practically for free. Maybe that’s ms definition of free open source software. Seems they want to corral the developers, herd them into a box, and just take developer ip as if they’re picking apples from an orchard.