Software is not effectively disqualified in theory. One of the major victories in the vote was that software is not patenteable by definition.
In practice, the patent conditions in article 2 (see http://lwn.net/Articles/50722/) put aside any software patent that is not for industrial purposes (in the strict sense of "automated production of material goods") and which is not technical ("The use of natural forces to control physical effects beyond the digital representation of information belongs to a technical field. The processing, handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a technical field, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes.")
It's possible that it affects algorithms. But I don't know how to legally separate an alogrithm from a program.
A Seg, 2003-09-29 às 10:07, edA-qa mort-ora-y escreveu:
Yes, it is a loaded question, but what is the general consensus towards the final wording of the patent law and whether software is effectively disqualified.
I also noted that some of the wording in the law may effectively make algorithms also not patentable -- such as the MP3 algorithm. Is this way off base, or has Franhaufer just lost their source of income?