It's more concrete than that there's an input, from a computer, with some sort of physical storage, and an output, again with some storage, that ultimately is for viewing. The goal is to do stuff with those numbers outside of the computer, ie create light patterns on a viewing medium.
> It's more concrete than that there's an input, from a computer, with some sort of physical storage, and an output, again with some storage, that ultimately is for viewing.
None of which is novel, or even directly related to the subject of the patent. The patent isn't about the input mechanism, the computing hardware, the storage media, or the display tech. It's about the abstract math that is carried out mechanically by these existing computing elements.
Evaluating a mathematical formula and visualizing the results as a grid of colored squares—all by hand—should never be found to infringe on anyone's patent. (This appears to be relatively uncontroversial.)
Doing the same, only faster thanks to the aid of a computer, should be similarly exempt from all patent infringement claims. The patent doesn't cover the computer, which already existed. All that's left is the math.
I have a lot of sympathy with your position and conclusion. Really I was trying to explain the position applied, it's not what I would do. Ultimately, legislatures (or those who control them) want to encourage developments that lead to faster, cheaper (less energy intensive) methods of encryption and encoding and so the law will be wiggled until it fits this need. Hence in Europe we effectively have, AIUI, a variation of the long-standing "technical effect" requirement where if the development can be concretised it can be patented.
Things are slightly tighter in UK law and much looser in USA; I don't follow patent law in other countries.
