Were every software engineer to do what I do, there would be far fewer spurious patents.
"Individual personal efforts of avoiding patents will be completely inconsequential," is the worst sort of abrogation of personal responsibility.
It would be much better if everyone who choose to not use patents would instead use patents to earn more money, and use this extra money to lobby their governments to change the laws. It will have a drastically higher ROI.
"And that, my boy, is why your fancy horseless carriage will never succeed."
* obviously in some cases the claims of charity don't measure up to the damage done making the money. I think Bill Gates happens to be winning, but that's not the point.
(shame on whoever downvoted is74. It's fine if working in a soup kitchen makes you happier. You don't have to feel threatened by a suggestion that you should consider alternatives, if you're capable of making lots of money)
Very few people succeed to the degree that Bill Gates has. Fewer still put their money to the good uses Bill and Melinda have been espousing. So while it is possible to end up with a positive outcome, these outcomes represent a minority.
So no, it's not particularly rational. It sort of assumes you can guarantee things you have very little control over.
You can't seriously argue that the consequences of creating+controlling a software patent (while advocating against software patents) are always net negative. All you have is your "if we all did our part" Kantian argument, which I respect, but decline to follow.
I actually don't argue against "all software patents." Truly novel work should be patented. But Software patents should be explicitly enumerated, their definition of "obviousness" refined for the field, and their duration shorted substantially (5 years?).
For example, the software and hardware that went into FingerWork's TouchStream keyboards (which Apple bought, btw) was excellent, novel work. They advanced the state of the art as they produced a product, and they deserved to be rewarded for that risk and innovation.
The problem is not the existence of patents. The problem is the lack of a clear definition for software patents and the abuse this void is suffering.
And I was specifically arguing against the idea that Bill Gates is an existence proof for abusing society for personal gain being justified by potential future good. Not only is that outcome rare, but Bill Gates has been demonized far more than his personal actions deserve.
My guess is the second set are causing all the problems, and that even if everybody in the first set decided to give up their competitive advantage based on their principles, the world would not be a significantly better place.