‘The automatic bar on patent protection for computer programs ‘as such’ in section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977 is unduly restrictive and out of step with modern information technology-based innovation. This exception to patentability should be removed from the Act so that any program meeting the basic requirements of novelty, inventive step, etc. is patentable like any other invention.’ The current paper aims to analyse section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977 and its relation with article 52(2) EPC. It further tries to establish the differences between the two approaches. The aim remains to analyse why EPO changed its approach for a narrower interpretation of ‘as such’ and why the UK refuses to follow. The essay will show that the English interpretation of ‘as such’ in section 1(2) is not suitable for the computer programming market reality of today concerning the economic and industry changes in size and structure. The attempt has been made to focus on showing that section 1(2) is too restrictive considering the type of businesses and innovations and a broader interpretation of ‘as such’ effects. The UK’s law had expressed intentions to remain in harmony with the EPO, ‘collocation’ as an alternative solution to following the ‘any hardware approach’ and the lack of benefit the total removal of section 1 (2) would bring.