I have a lot of sympathy with your position and conclusion. Really I was trying to explain the position applied, it's not what I would do. Ultimately, legislatu

I have a lot of sympathy with your position and conclusion. Really I was trying to explain the position applied, it's not what I would do. Ultimately, legislatures (or those who control them) want to encourage developments that lead to faster, cheaper (less energy intensive) methods of encryption and encoding and so the law will be wiggled until it fits this need. Hence in Europe we effectively have, AIUI, a variation of the long-standing "technical effect" requirement where if the development can be concretised it can be patented. Things are slightly tighter in UK law and much looser in USA; I don't follow patent law in other countries.