Alex Hudson wrote:
[This is beside all the other arguments: I believe the economic one to be particularly strong - software patents should not be given simply because they are not needed.]
Let me just say that you make an interesting point, and I agree with you that this makes it very difficult to defend 'software patents'. However, are you sure you're making an economic argument?
For me, the economic argument is simply "software can be used to imitate hardware, so if software is unpatentable I can get around patents by simply using software instead". This is unfair to patent holders and hence software that imitates hardware should be protected by the patent.
This does not mean *all* software is patentable. Just the software that is used to imitate the behavior of a specific hardware design. And I guess that's what I'm trying to say with the technical effect argument: if the software achieves the same effect as the hardware would, it should be just as patentable.
Arnoud