[connicpu]

If someone invents something truly novel I think they deserve the first right to make money off it. The extra bonus of having them file a patent is that when it expires it becomes free public knowledge for everyone. The problem for software is that the duration of the patent is way too long for the pace of innovation in the world of software, to the point that a reasonable duration patent probably wouldn't even be worth filing for after the time it takes to process. In other fields it's not the existence of patents but the games and loopholes e.g. pharma companies coming up with a slight reformulation they can patent again and again. It's not novel at that point and should not be granted a patent.

[eli]

What would be an example? Like you invent a new compression algorithm and nobody else should be able to use it for a year or two?

[connicpu]

Well patents are supposed to be more "you have to pay me if you want to use it before the term expires". Maybe a requirement to offer patent licenses for a reasonable price could help there, but it's tricky. I think at a minimum though software patents should have a shorter term than physical inventions.