What you mean to say, instead of ‘software patent’, is ‘functionally claimed patent’. Back in the stone age, people defined inventions by their structure, because structure determined functionality. So patents made claims to structurally different inventions. By doing this they got coverage over any extra functionality the structurally novel object performed.

Now that we’re out of the stone age, however, people define inventions by their functionality. Why? Because with a computer related invention, structure doesn’t define anything. So patents make claims to functionality, because a) structure doesn’t matter for general enablement, and b) any variation in structure would be obvious. And now they get coverage over any structure that their functionally novel object can be enabled with.

If you’re against functionally claimed patents, then you need to step back and rethink how you view the patent system and why it exists. It’s designed to promote innovation via disclosure while providing protection to the inventor. The fact that so many patents are filed nowadays with functionally claimed computer related inventions means that it is, in fact, promoting innovation via disclosure.

As far as protecting open source Linux material, publications are the route to go. Create one standardized group that publishes every new feature about Linux. Patent trolling is a function of patent quality. Patent quality is a function of the examiner having easy access to the prior art directly relating to the claimed invention.

IBM is well aware that its investment in software patents is an investment in a bubble that won’t necessarily generate any profits, but there is still a battle out there for perception among the public.

Some of the seniors at IBM continue to defend software patents (or escape the questions from critics altogether) and later on they ‘contribute’ imaginary assets in what they call a “pledge” or a “promise”. It’s like the MAFIAA taking people’s rights away and then selling them back.

IBM is unlikely to be the company that will ‘turn the table’ so to speak or let people know that it has just two 2′s, 3′s and a 5. It keeps its poker face, so it won’t come out with a confession. If you can make people believe something is worth a lot (much like branding, a la Coca Cola), then respect remains.

Patents are also mechanisms for price-fixing and artificial elevation of cost. We don’t need that applied to mere thought.

Shane said they have no value. I’m pointing out that nothing has any intrinsic monetary value. You’re making some argument about knowledge scarcity which is irrelevant; value and scarcity are completely different concepts (example: people buy bottled water particularly in urban areas, where fresh water is about the least scarce thing available).

Things are (only) worth what people are willing to pay. If you want to argue about another point go ahead, but it’s not related to anything I’m discussing.

It sure is relevant. Think about how the RIAA tries encouraging the perception that no music is free and nothing but copyrights exists in the arts.

Knowledge monopolies have centuries in a history of suppression.

@Shane: sure, that’s a value a car has to you. That’s nothing to do with the value it has for other people, though.

A car is no more worth $10,000 than a software patent or deed to a plot of land on the moon.

You’re totally ignoring issues of duplication and scarcity. Why limit human knowledge?

Patents have holders, and only the holder of the patent can prosecute it. If a large company transferred those patents (and shareholders don’t like that, as a rule!), they would no longer be in control of them. If they were still in control, they can still be bargained with. Trolls hold only a very small proportion of the overall patent pool, no matter how they got the patent.

@Shane: things, physical or not, are only worth what people will pay for them. You can make the same argument about practically any good. A car is no more worth $10,000 than a software patent or deed to a plot of land on the moon.

Also, it’s important to properly establish this ‘intellectual property’ that many of these large software companies claim to own is worth nothing, kinda like those mortgage-backed-securities the US financials were claiming as tremendous assets and turned out to be junk.

“Troll” cases make the most noise, but they’re not the most numerous by a fair way, since most patents are in the hands of actual product-producing businesses.