His obit is a good argument for patenting software. Even if you're against that, especially if you're against that, you should read https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/21/t...oetz-dead.html
You can right-click on the link, save it, read your copy. (It works for me; I have no subscription.)

The NY Tines wrote glowing words, but untrue words nonetheless. His obit is an argument for software patents only if you ignore that each point raised has been debunked repeatedly over the years, starting with the false claim that software patents help innovation.

The guy hurt computing in general more than many can even fathom. The NY Times did a really poor job in covering the death of such a controversial and harmful character.

The EU is protected, for now, by the European Patent Convention (EPC) sometimes known as the Convention on the Grant of European Patents from 1973 which specifically excludes software along with math, algorithms, and business models. Emphasis added:

( Note that the European Patent Office, which is embroiled in about two dozen horrendous scandals, is not a reliable source of information on anything more or less than if a specific patent has been granted, not if it is valid or even legal. )

Outside the EU over on the other side of the pond the US has had a change of heart and realized that software patents do indeed stifle innovation. However, it will still take some time for the dust to settle from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

Think about it. Software is an expression, like literature, and thus subject to copyright. Patents cover usage and affect anyone using the software.

I didn't say patenting software was right, just that it was worth thinking about, and Goetz had good arguments. Was copyright available for software?