Nobody – other than the most deluded fantasists among the anti-software-patents brigade – actually believes that all computer-implemented inventions are, or should be, unpatentable. To deny patent protection to an invention merely on the basis that it involves the use of a programmed computer leads to absurd outcomes, such as an improved control system for an industrial process being patentable when implemented using gears and pulleys, or using resistors, capacitors and transistors, but not if it is implemented by way of a microprocessor programmed to provide precisely the same functions.This is a result of the kind of muddled thinking that treats ‘digital’ as a magical incantation rather than what it actually is – another (admittedly powerful) tool in the engineer’s toolkit.
Having said that, it is also apparent that only the most deluded pro-patent fantasist would believe that absolutely anything created on a computer is, or should be, patentable. In Europe, and many other jurisdictions with similar provisions (including, very soon, New Zealand), patents are expressly prohibited on computer programs ‘as such’. The recent Alice decision by the US Supreme Court clearly establishes that there are at least some forms of computer-implemented financial processes that are nothing more than ‘abstract ideas’ accompanied by directions to ‘do it on a computer’, and thus unpatentable.
So, we can conclude with some certainty that some computer-implemented inventions are patentable, and some are not. The problem is that nobody – not the courts, not the national patent offices, not the law-makers – seems to wish to take any responsibility for deciding exactly where to draw the line. I have no idea where the line is, despite the fact that I read and write about this subject all the time, and practice in this area on behalf of clients every day. I do not know anyone, inside or outside the profession, in Australia or anywhere else, who knows where the line is – and I would not trust or choose to work with anyone who claims that they do!
Earlier this month, 
I recently noted 
An expanded panel of five judges of the Federal Court of Australia has held that two patents owned by AstraZeneca relating to the cholesterol-lowering drug marketed as CRESTOR (active ingredient rosuvastatin) are invalid. Subject to the possibility of a High Court appeal, the decision opens the way for generic competition to CRESTOR in Australia, which has 
Unless you have been living under a rock, or you literally know no tween-age children (or their parents), you have probably 
