Editing Software patent (section)

==Proposals==
In seeking to find a balance, different countries have different policies as to where the boundary between patentable and non-patentable software should lie. In Europe, a number of different proposals for setting a boundary line were put forward during the debate concerning the proposed [[Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions]], none of which were found acceptable by the various parties to the debate. Two particular suggestions for a hurdle that software must pass to be patentable include:

* A computer program that utilises "controllable forces of nature to achieve predictable results".<ref>{{citation|title=Amendment 23 to the proposed Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions|date=September 2003|publisher=[[European Parliament]]|url=http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/itre/20030219/488498en.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060210231145/http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/itre/20030219/488498en.pdf|archive-date=February 10, 2006}}<br/>{{citation|title=Dispositions program decision|publisher=[[Bundesgerichtshof]] (, BGH, Federal Court of Justice of Germany)|date=1976-06-22}}</ref>
* A computer program which provides a "technical effect".<ref>{{citation|url=https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t930059eu1.html |work=Decision T 0059/93 () of 20 April 1994|date=20 April 1994|publisher=[[Appeal procedure before the European Patent Office|European Patent Office, Boards of Appeal]]|title=Reasons, point 3.4}}</ref>

In the US, [[Ben Klemens]], a Guest Scholar at the [[Brookings Institution]], proposed that patents should be granted only to inventions that include a physical component that is by itself nonobvious.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=Wall Street Journal|date=25 March 2006|page=A9|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114325217495908172|title=The Gravity of the U.S. Patent Swindle}}</ref> This is based on Justice [[William Rehnquist]]'s ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court case of [[Diamond v. Diehr]] that stated that "... insignificant postsolution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process."<ref>{{cite court|url=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/450/175.html|litigants=Diamond v. Diehr|date=1981|quote="... insignificant postsolution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process."|vol=49|opinion=1112|reporter=U.S.|court=[[SCOTUS]]|via=FindLaw}}</ref> By this rule, one would consider software loaded onto a stock PC to be an abstract algorithm with obvious postsolution activity, while a new circuit design implementing the logic would likely be a nonobvious physical device. Upholding an "insignificant postsolution activity" rule as per Justice [[Rehnquist]]'s ruling would also eliminate most [[business method patent]]s.