[benj111]

That hardware was developed on computer is irrelevant.

A piece of hardware designed with a ruler and protractor is indistinguishable from one designed on a computer.

Re 2. If you 'invented' some trading cards based on HN members. That would be new in the sense that it's never been done before. But that doesn't make it patentable. We all have a sense that that's just an obvious iteration on a theme. But trading cards based on HN members, on a computer somehow becomes patentable.

You can make money from your invention. There's still copyright. If you want to take an algorithm and turn it into an actual product, provide an implementation then I'm not averse to patenting.

Currently we're in a situation where you could come up with the idea of listening to music 'on a computer' patent that very broad, basic thing. Without putting any work into an actual implementation.

That isn't an invention, it's just an idea.

[amelius]

I agree with your basic point, but this has very little to do with the difference between hardware and software, but boils down to the question of whether there is an actual implementation.

Maybe that should be the requirement then, instead of saying "software patents cannot exist, but hardware patents can".