indeed, it's a sore spot for patentability too. It's been argued that if the program is math and the math can be done by paper and pencil, then it's too abstrac

indeed, it's a sore spot for patentability too. It's been argued that if the program is math and the math can be done by paper and pencil, then it's too abstract for a patent, which are meant for machines and processes. But compression algorithms have received patents, and could be done by pencil and paper by a determined student... it's a bit like porn I suppose, "know it when I see it" > These cases are difficult to apply in practice because, as Chief Judge Randall Rader lamented in Accenture, "No one understands what makes an idea abstract."[7] The court's analyses and disagreements can be more easily understood, however, by focusing on the "mental steps doctrine," which is a subcategory of abstract ideas. In this rubric, purely mental processes are not patentable, and consequently methods that can be performed by a person with a pencil and paper cannot be patented. The recent Federal Circuit decisions are consistent with the mental steps doctrine, and even sometimes allude to it, but they do not rely on it. https://www.hansonbridgett.com/-/media/Files/Publications/mentalsteps.pdf https://www.hansonbridgett.com/-/media/Files/Publications/me...