Supported by theend of P2 The author explains that a law of nature or a logical axiom are not patentable, because they are not products of invention. As an example, the author notes that the principle that wind can be harnessed to produce energy is not patentable, because it is a law of nature. “On similar grounds,” the author believes software algorithms shouldn’t be patentable. The phrase “on similar grounds” implies that the reason the author believes software algorithms shouldn’t be patentable is that they are analogous to laws of nature or a logical axiom.

Not supported, because the author believes algorithms shouldn’t be patentable on the ground that they are not products of invention. The author explains that a principle that wind design can be harnessed to make energy isn’t patentable, because it’s not a product of invention. The author then states that “on similar grounds,” software algorithms shouldn’t be patentable. “On similar grounds” implies the author thinks software algorithms, like laws of nature, aren’t products of invention.

Not supported. The author believes copyright protection for code should be given only for “expressions of algorithms in an encoded form.” But there’s no mention of the algorithm needing to be previously unused in order to warrant protection.

Not supported, because the author never suggests anyone has an incorrect view about the severity of the problem of copycat programming. The author does believe proponents of software patents are wrong about the need for patent protection, but this isn’t because the author thinks copycat programming is less serious a problem. It’s because he thinks existing copyright law, with some slight modification, is adequate to address the problem.

The author never mentions literary works, anything that is synonymous with literary works, or any principles that we have reason to believe should apply to literary works. If you’re thinking that literary works deserve copyright protection, (E) still isn’t supported, because the author believes the encoding of algorithms should also get copyright protection. So we’d have no reason to think encoding of algorithms is not analogous to writing a literary work.