[somat]

Which is why you always present your patent as if it were a mechanical machine. Then in court you need to prove how their mechanism of instructions for a general purpose solver(software) is the same as your patent mechanism.

This is sort of a half-joke, But honestly I would not have a problem with software patents if they had to be filed in this manner. The problem I have is with patents that are "existing device (on a computer)" as if putting it on a computer was novel.

I feel that patents are a critical legal device. I think having economic exploitation protection for your novel mechanism is an important thing. However there are enough people exploiting the patent system itself that it does need some reform. However I am uncertain what that reform should be. A stricter interpretation of novel? a tighter interpretation of infringement? Honestly I am worried about the law of unintended consequences here.

[amiga386]

> I think having economic exploitation protection for your novel mechanism is an important thing.

Sure. But if it's software: fuck off and use copyright. If people copy you, you're injured, you can show they copied you and obtain damages/injunctions. But if you want monopoly control over an idea, no matter who else comes up with it... that's rent-seeking.

Patents don't offer monopolies for fun, they're supposed to advance society by offering incentives for disclosure. The amount of incentive, and the likelyhood of non-disclosure was very different in the past, it certainly doesn't fit for computer software, so soceity shouldn't continue to offer that pact for computer software.