In TRIPS
- See: TRIPS
Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement requires that patents be available "in all fields of technology". Thus, to exclude software from patentability, we have to argue that software is outside the legal definition of "fields of technology".
This is true because article 10 of TRIPS defines software as a literary work. Books are not a "technology", so neither is software.
 USA judge commentary
 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
The majority refuses to inject a technology requirement into the section 101 analysis because it believes that the terms “technological arts” and “technology” are “ambiguous.” See ante at 21.
As discussed more fully in section III, a claimed process is technological to the extent it applies laws of nature to new ends. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 67 (“‘If there is to be invention from . . . a discovery, it must come from the application of the law of nature to a new and useful end.’” (quoting Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130))
Full ruling: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1130.pdf
 Supreme Court
See the transcript: http://news.swpat.org/2009/11/bilski-hearing-transcript/
 Related pages on en.swpat.org
This wiki is part of the End Software Patents (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see: