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.
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.