I really don't have any time to carry on this discussion any further. But there are quite a few others who have already done so. That being the case, I'll just refer you to two articles from the Patently-O blog here and here, which help to explain how such things would work.

A major argument is that if they were openly allowed, they could be couched in language that would be more like the language used by computer scientists, and the true nature of the claimed invention would be much easier to examine (and challenge, by the way) by comparing the claims to the prior art.

And that would be a very, very good thing. Otherwise, you are going to get a lot of patents filed that are, in reality, directed to software, but obfuscated just enough so that they don't look as though they are and nobody understands them.. And there is the old maxim that "difficult cases make bad law." See Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes dissent in Northern Securities Co. v. U.S., 193 US 197, 363 (1904)

Goodbye. I have to work for an extended time to earn money to keep my family from being thrown out on the streets now, and I have the feeling you know enough about computers to use Google and other sources to find the answers yourself.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]