You can't remove yourself from the patent world if you're a company, no matter how much you might hate it. You as much get a patent to protect yourself as you get a patent for any other reason. It is a universally sound business strategy to protect your way of doing business, as the world is currently structured.
Secondly, a method for easing eye strain on long-term monitor viewers by changing the light frequency of the monitor gradually sounds like a great patent (I don't remember literally exactly what f.lux does, but it's something like that, right?).
Thirdly, software patents don't technically exist, and I know it may sound nitpicky to mention that, but from the phrasing you've used (open-source linux equivalent) it seems you think they're patenting the literal software, when in reality they're patenting the method. You can't patent software code itself. For at least a little while longer, we're living under a 'first-to-invent' system of patenting (until March 16th) so even if the linux equivalent exists, as long as f.lux can prove it's method was invented before the linux one was (and it was), they still have their claim.
Not sure if that's sarcastic or trolling or not. In the event that it's earnest, software patents are relatively frowned upon by most non-corporate entities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate
Given the existing system, it's silly not to participate. It's not a case where a boycott would help, and by holding the patent you ensure that no one else uses it against you.
We all know that prior art can be missed when issuing a patent -- I'd assume having it already in the patent system makes that less likely to happen, and easier to deal with when it does happen.
Not sarcastic or trolling. Can't one hold a patent and also offer the product for free, provide open source code, and allow others to do the same?
On the flip side, suppose the patent holders do lock down this idea. Do you really think that humanity (or the US) is going to benefit from competing copies of a program that changes the color of our screens?
Are you truly concerned that the patent is going to take this program away from us? Have you contacted the patent-applicants to ask what they plan to do with the patent? Why is the pantent-pending "pretty important" for this piece of software? Why not patent this idea? If the only answer is "software patents are bad!", then it's worth thinking about these questions more.
> Can't one hold a patent and also offer the product for free, provide open source code, and allow others to do the same?
Yes, or you could write open source software and defend prior art in precisely the same way as you'd defend a patent. Given that one option is free and the other one requires the patent process, it's unlikely that they're patenting something just for kicks.
> Do you really think that humanity (or the US) is going to benefit from competing copies of a program that changes the color of our screens?
Yes. How about this as a built-in feature on iOS?
> Are you truly concerned that the patent is going to take this program away from us?
Yes. The lifetime of software, especially indie software, is dwarfed by the lifetime of a patent.
> Why is the pantent-pending "pretty important" for this piece of software? Why not patent this idea?
Software patents are rare outside of very large corporate entities, and it's worrying to see that a small group would think that they're worthwhile.
> If the only answer is "software patents are bad!", then it's worth thinking about these questions more.
Even a brief, two-minute read of the wikipedia page or any other of the top few google results on software patents should make the case that this is more than knee-jerk reaction.
Secondly, a method for easing eye strain on long-term monitor viewers by changing the light frequency of the monitor gradually sounds like a great patent (I don't remember literally exactly what f.lux does, but it's something like that, right?).
Thirdly, software patents don't technically exist, and I know it may sound nitpicky to mention that, but from the phrasing you've used (open-source linux equivalent) it seems you think they're patenting the literal software, when in reality they're patenting the method. You can't patent software code itself. For at least a little while longer, we're living under a 'first-to-invent' system of patenting (until March 16th) so even if the linux equivalent exists, as long as f.lux can prove it's method was invented before the linux one was (and it was), they still have their claim.