Actually, it doesn't make all that much sense. Basically, software is the reductio ad absurdam of "process" -- it is nothing *but* process. (And indeed, software couldn't be patented until the advent of "business process" patents, a few decades ago.) And the problem is, it's all wildly interconnected -- software always builds on other software.
So in airy theory it makes some sense, but in terms of societal good (which is what the patent system is supposed to be for), it's a net negative: software patents make it much, much more difficult (or at least, more dangerous) to write *other* software, which in general slows down innovation.
There are those who argue that software patents enhance innovation, by providing incentives for VCs to invest idiotic amounts of money in companies. As a lifelong startup guy, I think that's mostly BS: VC money tends to cause as much harm as good when it comes to innovation, distracting companies into foolish swing-for-the-fences bets instead of building sensible businesses. Large, rich companies can afford the lawyers necessary to abuse the system to their advantage; small, innovative companies generally get screwed.
I should note: software is *also* copyrighted, and that part makes sense: the specific lines of code that you write are by default copyrighted unless you say otherwise. (The "open source" movement is mainly grounded in folks attaching explicit licenses that loosen the default assumptions of copyright.) The patents apply to the *designs* of the software, and that's the bit that is, on the whole, more bad than good.
no subject
So in airy theory it makes some sense, but in terms of societal good (which is what the patent system is supposed to be for), it's a net negative: software patents make it much, much more difficult (or at least, more dangerous) to write *other* software, which in general slows down innovation.
There are those who argue that software patents enhance innovation, by providing incentives for VCs to invest idiotic amounts of money in companies. As a lifelong startup guy, I think that's mostly BS: VC money tends to cause as much harm as good when it comes to innovation, distracting companies into foolish swing-for-the-fences bets instead of building sensible businesses. Large, rich companies can afford the lawyers necessary to abuse the system to their advantage; small, innovative companies generally get screwed.
I should note: software is *also* copyrighted, and that part makes sense: the specific lines of code that you write are by default copyrighted unless you say otherwise. (The "open source" movement is mainly grounded in folks attaching explicit licenses that loosen the default assumptions of copyright.) The patents apply to the *designs* of the software, and that's the bit that is, on the whole, more bad than good.