What makes software patents different than any other patent if it is a genuinely unique piece of software? Not a baited question, by the way. I don't understand why it would be different unless it's something like zooming in or copy and paste.
That, and that software is so easy to copy you could argue that not copying it greatly impedes technological advancement of your society. Especially in comparison with adversaries who will violate the patents freely.
I agree with your second point entirely. I can see how closed doors can impede progress. But I thought that's what licensing was for.
Also, the argument I'm questioning is that software patents are inherently wrong as a concept. I still don't get that.
Unless you've got a good chunk of cash or the backing of a decent sized corporation, filing a patent is pretty difficult and burdonsome for an individual. And even then actually enforcing it against infringers takes even more money.
If the variability in time-to-patent exceeds the delta between independent inventions you no longer have a fair system.
At best you're randomly rewarding the patent to one lucky inventor. At worst you're rewarding it to the one who is best able to game the patent system, encouraging corruption throughout.
The legal basis for why that doesn't apply to software has always seemed specious at best to me.
It's much easier to compare two screw heads and work out who copied who from the dates they were put on the market than it is to work out who invented the flashing icon first. What's more, it's an endless debate as to whether the flashing icon can be traced back to an ATARI 2600 game from 1988 is a prior art.
Furthermore, patent protection must not have a disproportionate effect on the market. A patent and the licensing conditions for a technology such as the seat belt or ABS brakes should not completely prevent other car manufacturers from implementing them.
Software patents are often at the limit of mathematical demonstration, the absence of prior art is difficult to prove and they have disproportionate effects which are exploited by patent trolls. The market is made up of thousands of small studios and independent developers who don't have the means to search for patents. This is not the same as the aerospace market, with 5-6 major manufacturers all backed by law firms specialising in intellectual property and patents.
This has been tested and even the most fervent capitalist thinks it was a bad idea. The only people who really defend software patents are patent trolls.
software patents usually don't contain source code. just the general idea of how to achieve the outcome, they can be very broad or very subjective depending on who is in court
Patents Vs. Copyright: you can create software that does the same thing differently. kinda like torrenting vs direct download, they both deliver bytes too you but the bytes are delivered/received in very different ways.
taking someones software/machine instructions (the bytes that are the code) and calling it your own is copyright infringment.
if someone creates a new patented algorithm and you copy that algorithm into a different language then it is patent infrigement.
also patents have too be filed and approved while copyright is generally a given if the copyright is not already existing (depending on your jurisdiction i guess)