I buy the argument that software is math and thus unpatentable. My experience has also been that most software patents (and especially always the most notorious) are trivial applications of an algorithm to some subject area.
But here's a more pragmatic argument.
The current patent system exists to provide financial incentive to bring the number of inventors in an untouched area from 0 to 1.
It is completely broken wherever it brings the number of innovators in an emerging area from 50 to 1.
The first case is probably true in any industry with high startup costs and unproven technology. The second case is true of software and services on the still young, still evolving internet, with low technological barriers to entry and fertile soil as far as the eyes can see.
If we want to see what innovators are really capable of, we'll get rid of software patents and watch them duke it out in the market.
But here's a more pragmatic argument.
The current patent system exists to provide financial incentive to bring the number of inventors in an untouched area from 0 to 1.
It is completely broken wherever it brings the number of innovators in an emerging area from 50 to 1.
The first case is probably true in any industry with high startup costs and unproven technology. The second case is true of software and services on the still young, still evolving internet, with low technological barriers to entry and fertile soil as far as the eyes can see.
If we want to see what innovators are really capable of, we'll get rid of software patents and watch them duke it out in the market.