OK, Mr. Goetz is correct for the most part on all counts. And I don't understand enough about the software patents arguments to really comment one way or the other. But what I do know is that the bottom line, and what ultimately turns me against software patents (and drug patents as well) is that this is really all about money.

How does humanity as a whole benefit from a patent holder demanding compensation for the use of their "software invention" when it's duplicated, unknowingly, by an independent hacker working in his basement on a pet project following the rapid uptake of their project by the greater software community? What if the hacker gave the software away for free? How does the original patent holder get compensated?

Or what happens when implementations of useful, but somewhat obvious technical solutions to problems are patented? Like linked-lists, for example? Or a compression algorithm? etc. etc.?

IMHO, just because someone implements something in software first, doesn't necessarily give them the right to own that implementation for some unreasonable amount of time.

There must be a better way?