Software patents wouldn't be so bad if they patented specific code, but they're patenting vague concepts here. It's not like patents on physical items, where a competitor can research and find an alternate process to achieve the same end without violating the patent.
This doesn't seem to be the case according to the US Patent law. They're pretty clear that you can't patent a concept, only the creation from the idea. Something tangible, like the code, or perhaps a data structure graph.
This is why I think there's more going on here. I feel like this is more like a bad judiciary that's claiming "welp, you made a thing, so all variants of this thing are also yours regardless of who makes them, or why, or in what way."
Unfortunately, patent law judges are all old boomers who don't understand computers, so precedent for software patents is all kinds of fucked up, which enables patent trolls.
Software patents wouldn't be so bad if they patented specific code, but they're patenting vague concepts here. It's not like patents on physical items, where a competitor can research and find an alternate process to achieve the same end without violating the patent.
This doesn't seem to be the case according to the US Patent law. They're pretty clear that you can't patent a concept, only the creation from the idea. Something tangible, like the code, or perhaps a data structure graph.
This is why I think there's more going on here. I feel like this is more like a bad judiciary that's claiming "welp, you made a thing, so all variants of this thing are also yours regardless of who makes them, or why, or in what way."
Unfortunately, patent law judges are all old boomers who don't understand computers, so precedent for software patents is all kinds of fucked up, which enables patent trolls.
Which is what I expect, which would require clarification in the judiciary and in the law, rather than abolishing patents entirely.