[scromar]

I don't think this is true in general. Most patents I have read have had very detailed descriptions of the invention. In fact, it is to the patentee's benefit to be as detailed as possible in describing the invention. It will be harder for people to claim you didn't invent something if you have completely described it in your patent.

In contrast, what is actually claimed (that is, the bounds of the legal right to exclude that a patent grants), is typically made as broad as possible. Claims will be included that are both broad and narrow, so that if the patent is ever used in court, and the broad claims are knocked out by some new prior art, there are still narrower claims that can be asserted.

In general, the patentee should describe every version of the invention they have conceived of, in as much detail as possible, so as to support both broad and narrow claims. If the description is not specific, it is generally for lack of time or money on the part of the patentee or inventor, and it results in a weaker patent.

[talmand]

I would agree with regular, every day patents describing mechanical inventions and the like. But show me software patents that show the actual code involved in producing the result. From what I've seen they usually have drawings showing the method and/or result. They do not show how it works.

It would be like a patent for a hand gun that has exterior drawings of the gun, a hand holding the gun/pulling the trigger, and then showing the bullet coming out of the barrel. No explanation of how the inner mechanism itself works. Therefore any other gun that works in a similar exterior manner but has a completely different inner mechanism would violate the patent.

That's my understanding of how most software patents are done.