And vice versa, that the same crowd that is violently anti-patent (in the majority) is also perpetually upset (in the majority) when a game of lovable developer X,Y,Z gets copied.
I've had one of my games cloned so badly that, in their launch forum thread, about 80% of the posts were saying 'uh you just copied [my game]'.
It pissed me off quite a lot, but I in no way believe I should have been able to respond legally. Protecting me from being ripped off wholesale would be preventing everyone from being able to cross pollinate ideas, which is what gaming - and software development in general - is founded on.
But it seems like 99% of software patent issues are about two people sitting down to solve the same common problem and independently writing their own algorithms that achieve a similar solution.
A case of people simultaneously converging on the optimum solution to a problem and implementing that solution themselves seems like a complete non-issue and what progress looks like to me but that's what most the current fuss seems to be about.
The question is whether and to what degree the government and courts should be involved, and the inability to draw bright lines provides a strong argument against.
The legal system is making "I know it when I see it" decisions. I think that should be avoided whenever possible.