Editing Software patent (section)

===Australia===
In Australia, there is no particular exclusion for patents relating to software. The subject matter of an invention is patentable in Australia, if it is a ''manner of manufacture'' within the meaning of section 6 of the [[Statute of Monopolies]].<ref>{{cite Legislation AU|Cth|act|/pa1990109|Patents Act 1990|18}} Patentable inventions</ref> The High Court of Australia has refrained from ruling on the precise definition of manner of manufacture stating that any such attempt is bound to fail for the policy reason of encouraging national development in fields that may be unpredictable.<ref name="102 CLR 252">{{cite AustLII|HCA|67|1959|litigants=National Research Development Corp v Commissioner of Patents |parallelcite=(1959) 102 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 252 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> In assessing whether an invention is a manner of manufacture, the High Court has relied on the inquiry of whether the subject of the claims defining the invention has as its end result an ''artificially created state of affairs''.<ref name="102 CLR 252"/>

In a decision of the Federal Court of Australia, on the patentability of an improved method of representing curved images in computer graphics displays, it was held that the application of selected mathematical methods to computers may involve steps which are foreign to the normal use of computers and hence amount to a manner of manufacture.<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCA|811|1991|parallelcite=105 [[Australian Law Reports|ALR]] 388 |litigants=International Business Machines Corp v Commissioner of Patents |courtname=auto}}.</ref> In another unanimous decision by the Full Federal Court of Australia, an invention for methods of storing and retrieving Chinese characters to perform word processing was held to be an artificially created state of affairs and consequently within the concept of a manner of manufacture.<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCA|396|1994|parallelcite=(1994) 51 [[Federal Court Reports|FCR]] 260 |litigants=CCOM Pty Ltd v Jie-jing Pty Ltd |courtname=[[Federal Court of Australia|Federal Court (Full Court)]] |juris=Australia}}.</ref>

Nevertheless, in a recent decision on the patentability of a computer implemented method of generating an index based on selection and weighing of data based on certain criterion, the Full Federal Court of Australia reaffirmed that mere methods, schemes and plans are not manners of manufacture.<ref name="austlii.edu.au">{{cite AustLII|FCAFC|150|2014|litigants=Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents |date=10 November 2014 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> The Full Court went on to hold that the use of a computer to implement a scheme did not contribute to the invention or the artificial effect of the invention.<ref name="austlii.edu.au"/> The subject matter of the invention was held to be an abstract idea and not a manner of manufacture within the meaning of the term in the Patents Act. The same Full Federal Court in another decision regarding the patentability of an invention regarding a method and system for assessing an individual's competency in relation to certain criterion, reiterated that a business method or mere scheme were per se are not patentable.<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCAFC|177|2015|litigants=Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd |date=11 December 2015 |courtname=auto}}.</ref>

In principle, computer software is still a valid patentable subject matter in Australia. But, in circumstances where patents have been sought over software to merely implement abstract ideas or business methods, the courts and the Commissioner of Patents have resisted granting patent protection to such applications both as a matter of statutory interpretation and policy.