> I agree with this, but my key question is: why stop at software patents?
Because the key argument is that math is not patentable. Software patents are relatively uniquely expressible amoung patents as mathematical conjectures.
Because the key argument is that math is not patentable. Software patents are relatively uniquely expressible amoung patents as mathematical conjectures.
If someone constructively proves p=np then they deserve some term-limited profit taking.
Getting a monopoly for being the first pos to mail some legalese to the right government office about clicking a button once to order something for delivery is both not math and not beneficial to society.
The problem is software patents is not that software is math. The problem is software patents is that most patentable software is obvious to anyone without severe brain damage, and no one in the legal establishment has historically had any clue how to assess whether some idea in software is non-obvious.