I'll quote PG himself: "One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general. Gradually our machines consist more and more of software. Things that used to be done with levers and cams and gears are now done with loops and trees and closures. There's nothing special about physical embodiments of control systems that should make them patentable, and the software equivalent not."
By speaking out against software patents, you are essentially saying that programmers are not capable of inventing, or that they should not be afforded the same protections that other inventors receive.
It's not clear to me where the line between "software patents" and "other patents" exists, or why that should be a bright line.
And even if you could convince me that patents in field X (say, patents for mining machinery) were (at present) holding back rather than encouraging innovation in that field, this might not be a convincing argument anyway. I think government should treat all industries equally unless there's some very compelling reason not to.
What evidence have you heard that patents actually help?
> that patents in field X (say, patents for mining machinery) were (at present) holding back rather than encouraging innovation in that field, this might not be a convincing argument anyway.
Wow, that's harsh. "These arbitrary rules against redheads are ruining Ireland but at least we're enforcing the rule evenly across countries."
PG is right about there being no strong line between software and hardware. What's wrong is assuming that means we need patents at all.
Like all government granted monopoly they're harmful to society. Engineers are instructed to avoid looking at patents. What was supposed to be a cookbook of methods for society is really a minefield you must traverse blindfolded lest you risk having three times as many legs blown off.
