A few things. First, just because software patents use the magic words "with a computer" doesn't make them any less patents on mental processes -- they're just being written with an artificial formality of language to evade Section 101. A general purpose computer is just a machine for implementing algorithms, and it's the algorithms that are being patented. Second, the absence of software patents doesn't mean that people "innovate for free." I don't really know how to argue about this except to say that lots of innovators have gotten very rich without enforcing software patents. Third, there are large companies that have grown successfully large without software patents (not sure what "large" means in this context).

Finally, re, which is the "better solution." What is the problem? What are we solving with our solutions of copyright or patent or whatever else. How is the problem defined? I'd love to see some empirical data describing the scope of this problem. I would like to see any evidence at all that we need IP for what it's claimed it does, which as far as I can tell is "incentivize innovation," I guess? I'll even take anecdotes -- even just one -- of people who have started software businesses or invented software because they knew they'd have a patent or copyright. Because I can point you to all kinds of people who never expected IP to give them monopoly power (even if they did end up getting patents or copyrights because their university or funders made them) who still innovate, of products that are improved and make more money for their producers because of end-user innovation, of how all sorts of IP formulations end up hindering innovation and introducing inefficiency, etc.

-- BahradSokhansanj - 06 Oct 2011