I hadn't heard it explained this way before, but it explains so much.
So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding?
That's not how it works in Europe; just saying "done on a computer" is explicitly not enough. There's a concept called "technical effect" that's been worked over in the courts and well developed in the last decade (I'll leave you to look it up, eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_E...).
I'm a bit out of the loop but whilst USA started letting pretty much anything in there seem to have tightened up over the years.
There's a parallel with business methods too. In both cases there been a move towards a middleground - harmonisation. Personally I feel the USA position is far worse and this harmonisation is not good; liberalisation of soft-pat and business method patents on Europe would be a big loss IMO.
>So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding?
That was how the law was until recently. But the supreme court found that "just do it on a computer" no longer counts.
So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding?