> Most of the time when I write software, I feel much more that I am "creating" (copyright) rather than "inventing" (patent). I can just "tell" the computer to

> Most of the time when I write software, I feel much more that I am "creating" (copyright) rather than "inventing" (patent). I can just "tell" the computer to do something, and it does it. That doesn't work for wheels and gears. I think this is true for the vast majority of software, and likely for the vast majority of software people try to patent. I think you raise an interesting point regarding "telling a computer what to do" vs "inventing", and this seems like it would be a good distinction between non-patentable software and that which is patentable. There is a subset of processes that essentially involve "telling a computer what to do", and then refining those instructions until the point where the computer knows how to execute each step. Obviously, this is just a description of writing software. But this process doesn't work for all problems. There is no telling a computer to "write a symphony"--there are no standard/obvious set of refinements to that statement that will result in a working program to write a symphony. To accomplish this would require "inventing" a new algorithm (lets not go "ergo math" just yet). One would have to create a non-obvious process to govern the interactions between input sounds to create the output symphony. I don't think anyone would have a problem with saying someone "invented" a symphony writing computer program. On the other hand, the process of "one click ordering" has an obvious set of refinements from problem statement to execution such that you cannot reasonably be said to be inventing one click ordering. Of course, these are probably the two most obvious examples on either side of the debate, but I think it illustrates the fact that these decisions can be made rationally and fairly with some common sense guidelines.