Not supported as a view of the proponents. Although we can infer that they believe an underlying algorithm involves invention, we don’t know that they think sequences of code that express the algorithm involve more inventiveness than the underlying algorithm. You cannot point to a line that provides evidence of the proponents’ view of the inventiveness involved in creating sequences of code.

Anti-supported. Generic principles are not patentable. So proponents of patent protection for algorithms would believe that algorithms are not generic principles.

Anti-supported. The proponents do not argue that software products should not be protected by copyright. They are in favor of copyright protection. They just want patent protection on top of copyright.

Supported. It’s clear that proponents of patent protection want the encoding of algorithms to receive patent protection. What’s more difficult to see is that they also want the algorithms themselves to be protected. There’s no single line that proves this; rather, we need to understand that a central component of the debate between the author and the proponents is the distinction between algorithms and the encoding of algorithms (the sequences of code that express the algorithm). The author argues that the underlying algorithms shouldn’t be patentable. Why would the author say this in response to the proponents if the proponents didn’t have a different view? The implication is that the proponents do believe algorithms should be patentable (in addition to the encoding of algorithms being patentable). The author’s response at the end of P2 would make no sense if the proponents agreed that the algorithms shouldn’t be patentable.

We have no evidence of the proponents’ belief about the relationship between the number of programming languages and the prevalence of copycat programming.