[nness]

Patents fundamentally operate to allow the owner of protection to extract value from research and development investment. If you cannot protect your research and development, then competitor may extend upon your invention without the necessary capital or time investment — effectively making any kind of innovation risky and unattractive to business. There is no model where abolishing patents still grants protection for R&D.

The complaint is that software patents have been awarded and interpreted far too broadly, and coupled with the relatively low cost of R&D for software, have begun to stymied innovation in the same way patents intended to prevent.

[mnau]

Inventor profits by being ahead of competition. VisiCalc (first spreadsheet) was a killer app.

But they didn't innovate and were taken over by Lotus 1-2-3 four years later.

Lotus was great, graphs and all.

Same thing happened to the Lotus, Excel was just better. Lotus didn't innovate (e.g. IBM had first ever pivot tables and they made separate spreadsheet program for it instead off improving Lotus).

[nness]

Inventors only profit if and when they release — Patents allow you to cover the cost of research and development even if a profitable product does not materialise or is not profitable at the time of release. R&D is essential for economic growth, so the promise/higher-chance of a successful return at some point in the future, I think, this is a reasonable trade-off.