It may be maintained that software patents do not exist and that CII is the right phrase to use. We completely agree that the notion of a computer implemented invention is a meaningful one and that such inventions may be in need of patenting. In such cases computer programs may be used as an implementation strategy but a pure hardware implementation may be conceivable as well. In our opinion, all patents discussed in Section 7 are software patents in a more generic sense. The patent is about how to achieve something by means of running computer executable programs (software), or even on methods for writing such programs or designing programming languages. None of these inventions makes any sense outside the realm of programmed computers, and these inventions are about how something may be achieved given that computer programs will be used. A software patent concerns an invention about a software-based computer implementation, while a computer implemented invention is about an invention that may be implemented in software.
We cannot imagine that the IsNot patent application could be classified as a computer implemented invention which may admit a pure hardware embodiment, since this would amount to a single not gate. As a consequence the mere need to grant patents for clear cases of computer implemented inventions (e.g., the design of novel control software/hardware for an airbag) should not be taken as an argument that pure software patents do not exist. The software industry will soon be in a need to deal with a massive number of ``true software patents''. A careful consideration of the rules of that game from a software engineering perspective is necessary to grasp the effects of the introduction of patent regulations that will generate an abundance of such patents.