This is a situation like a patent on a printing press. A new printing press is patentable but the printed contents is not. Similarly if an engineer invents a device for moving symbols from one place to another this device is patentable as long as he doesn't patent the symbols being transmitted.

Whoever said printed matter was not patentable subject matter?

I believe practical utility does not distinguish contents from patentable invention. For example, a phone book is useful. A video of a leaking underwater oil well is useful. There is a lot of work in obtaining these contents. It is not easy to collect the data and ensuring it is correct. What distinguish these situations from an algorithm for the optimal codes to be transmitted over a channel? I say the claim must include a distinguishing element and this element can't be utility.

Of course it has to include a distinguishing element. The distinguishing elements include novelty and non-obviousness. What distinguishes your examples from mine is that there is no known way of determining an "optimal" code for transmission over a channel, thus, invention is required to invent useful codes. But anyone with ordinary skill in the art can compile a phone book, so if there is any distinguishing element, it can be found outside of defining a class of unpatentable subject matter and thus doesn't require a special court-devised exception to the patentable subject matter list of section 101.

I'll leave you to distinguish (or not) the example about the video of the leaking oil well, because I don't understand the point of that example. But, the weekend is over for me, and I have to get back to working long hours again.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]