IMO, you should be able to patent processes that are based on new technological development, but not the logic/flowpath of the process. Software itself should fall under copyright law.
Copyright law has been polluted by Micky Mouse.
As a result software should NOT fall under copyright law.
It is "Goofy" as heck that each time the Copyright of the old
mouse comes up the bar moves is insane.
Copyright might cover the text of code as code tells a story of what
is happening but to patent all stories about "Boy meets girl, boy and
girl fall in love, something happens under the covers and they live
happily ever after" is not worthy of a patent or copyright.
Sadly many method and process patents are little more than outlines
of a screenplay level abstractions of an idea. Further some of the
Copyright laws cover characters and plot formats. To this end characters
and plot formats are kin of an API. We have seen the nasty bits
that can happen when API freedom is murky (Java: Oracle-Google).
When the API is found to have value in and of itself the "owner" wants
to pull in the reign and put a context on permissions. Hardback books
might be OK but not paperback and not eBook stories.
Authors of Sherlock Holmes and other serialized character based stories
protected their intellectual property with Copyright. Today I am prohibited
from crafting stories and screenplays about a character "Sheldon Cooper"
that ..... Well you get the idea.
Copyright is the wrong choice. We need a better answer, a much better answer.
It is good to note that code is authored. Good code like a good story has structure,
consistency, organization and purpose. Side effects are possible. It can be asynchronous
perhaps in a Kurt Vonnegut way. The choice of language, punctuation and typography
might reflect on e.e. cummings.. It can be vapid and return the empty set or return
vastly more to the point that some spend a lifetime building on it.