[gerickson]

If I write a great piece of software, patent it, then run a business selling it, then that patent does me (and my family) a lot of good. I worked hard to create the software, and I should reap the rewards.

If software patents didn't exist, maybe I wouldn't have based my business on that software in the first place because I'd worry that somebody else would notice that it's profitable and use it to run their business. Patents are necessary to encourage people to innovate, though obviously some patents (that probably shouldn't have been given in the first place) have stunted innovation.

[justinschuh]

The request was for an actual example, not a hypothetical scenario. Also, you seem to grossly misunderstand the function of software patents. You don't patent a piece of software; you have a copyright that provides the full and appropriate protection of law. In contrast, software patents apply to general processes, use cases or algorithms, as opposed to specific implementations.

[beej71]

> If I write a great piece of software, patent it, then run a business selling it, then that patent does me (and my family) a lot of good. I worked hard to create the software, and I should reap the rewards.

Your non-trivial software is already in violation of scores or even hundreds of existing patents. You should get as many software patents as possible to cover your ass.

> Patents are necessary to encourage people to innovate

[looks around] In software, this is not the case.

Software patents are a good idea in theory, but in practice, the baby needs to get thrown out with the bathwater.

[rbarooah]

That's the theory of why they might be good in principle.

I think the original poster was asking for real examples of how they have been good in practice.

[stjernstrom]

So what did they do before (software) patents? How do you explain that other countries without software patents still produce great software?

My opinion is that patents stop innovations rather than encourage them.