[throwawaykf05]

Here's the thing: It's not us engineers who pay the lawyers. It's our employers. We don't even get a say in the matter, and over time various changes in the law have simply tipped the balance even more in favor of the employers. Your employer can file a patent on your work whether you cooperate or not.

And it's not like they are going to pay us more if they stop filing patents. In fact, many firms pay a bonus if your work results in a patent (or even a patent application.) Clearly they see some value in them, and they have reasons to.

And this is true of all patents, btw, not just in software.

[jaredhansen]

>And it's not like they are going to pay us more if they stop filing patents.

This is actually not true at all. The cost here isn't in the filing of the patents; it's in the nightmarish patent system that results in absurd litigation and related expenses. If the patent system were reformed to avoid this kind of expense, the company would have lower operating costs, which would be distributed in some way. While it's possible I suppose that 100% of those savings would be collected by shareholders as profit, it's much more likely that, like with anything else, the cost reductions would simply contribute to the size of the total pie, which would be split among owners and employees in proportions probably roughly similar to how it's split today.

[throwawaykf05]

That sounds plausible, but we all know that if there's a bigger pie, almost always the spoils go to the owners and employees get peanuts. Google and Apple are sitting on billions in cash and yet they colluded to essentially keep wages down.

[Guvante]

Short term profits are what firms live off. EBIT is sacred regardless of your cashflow. (I am in no way supporting this mentality, just re-emphasizing it)