This is a tough debate. On the one hand, it is clear why software should be subject to patents just as other ‘inventions’ are. Perfect illustration is the controversy around the clones of the game ‘Threes’ (which is totally great, by the way). Why would anyone put in hard work to come up with an innovative product if they know that it will be immediately and shamelessly ripped off? It is the patent system that protects against that happening.

The problem is that patents are too powerful. Companies can acquire (often extremely vague) patents and use them to extract money from other companies too small to adequately defend themselves. These are called ‘patent trolls’.

But it’s not just the ‘trolls’ that make the US patent system counter-productive:

“Daniel Nazer, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that restrictions on patent eligibility would lead to greater innovation because companies would be forced to come up with new products instead of relying on patent protections.

”That’s how people get cheaper, better products,” he said. “You stay a step ahead.””

That’s exactly right. Vague patents rigorously enforced harm competition. Even lousy products can be patented, and this deters more motivated companies from making a better competing product, lest it be subject to a patent challenge.

jhxmti has it right in the comments:

“If you want to remain the best, you should be striving to remain the best by virtue of your good product, not by virtue of destroying other good products.”