there are valid arguments about patentability of software, but you didn't make any of those arguments.
> But disclosure is rarely an issue with software
patents require disclosure. patented software requires disclosure. if you are saying that software is often disclosed (open source vs "rarely an issue"? you weren't specific) that doesn't mean you get a free ticket for some other restriction, and open source was not common when software patents were granted.
>So can you name some software patents where those motivating factors actually worked?
I'm not sure I believe that the patent system works to do that. But it is absolutely true that trade secrets can die with their owners an that society benefits from disclosure. I'm not here to defend the patent system. I'm here to say that you did not do a good job of arguing against software patents.
An example of a software patent that I think is fundamentally "solid" is public key encryption. Some people thought of it, they developed it, it is at least as novel and clever and non-obvious as the cotton gin, so if the cotton gin should be patentable, public key encryption should also be.
but I'm not here to defend patents, I'm just saying that you are not moving the needle.
So you can't name a single software patent where the system worked as intended, but you DON'T think that's a valid argument against software patents?
Your standards for a valid argument make no sense.
> An example of a software patent that I think is fundamentally "solid" is public key encryption. Some people thought of it, they developed it, it is at least as novel and clever and non-obvious as the cotton gin, so if the cotton gin should be patentable, public key encryption should also be.
It's cool that they got paid for having those clever thoughts.
But the goal of the US patent system isn't just to enable that payment, it's to encourage more innovation and disclosure via that payment.
And also, those core inventions happened almost 50 years ago with that field getting more collaborative and less patent-using every decade.
If that's the best example multiple people can come up with, then software patents are an extremely failed experiment.
> But disclosure is rarely an issue with software
patents require disclosure. patented software requires disclosure. if you are saying that software is often disclosed (open source vs "rarely an issue"? you weren't specific) that doesn't mean you get a free ticket for some other restriction, and open source was not common when software patents were granted.
>So can you name some software patents where those motivating factors actually worked?
I'm not sure I believe that the patent system works to do that. But it is absolutely true that trade secrets can die with their owners an that society benefits from disclosure. I'm not here to defend the patent system. I'm here to say that you did not do a good job of arguing against software patents.
An example of a software patent that I think is fundamentally "solid" is public key encryption. Some people thought of it, they developed it, it is at least as novel and clever and non-obvious as the cotton gin, so if the cotton gin should be patentable, public key encryption should also be.
but I'm not here to defend patents, I'm just saying that you are not moving the needle.