End Software Patents?
In a lengthy article on the Legal Pad, he provides a thorough backgrounder on the End Software Patents project.
At the moment, the End Software Patents project is formally an offshoot of the Free Software Foundation. It also enjoys the “sponsorship” — though not monetary support — of the Software Freedom Law Center, which is led by Eben Moglen (an outside lawyer for the FSF and its former general counsel), and of the Public Patent Foundation, an organization led by the center’s legal director Dan Ravicher. The Software Freedom Law Center is itself funded largely by such Linux-supporting corporate patrons as IBM (IBM), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Red Hat (RHT), Novell (NOVL), Oracle (ORCL), and Sun Microsystems (JAVA).So, what do you think about ending software patents: Has the time come?
To be sure, the goal of abolishing software patents remains a radical position in the sense that very few corporations endorse it. (A surprising exception is pharmaceutical manufacturer Eli Lilly & Co. See here. Evidently Lilly recognizes that poor quality software patents are among the problems spurring the tech industry to seek patent reforms, and it hopes to find of way of placating the tech industry without weakening protections for the drug patents that are the lifeblood of the pharmaceutical industry.)
Though many information technology companies, like IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and Cisco, are publicly championing patent reform, they only favor improving the quality of software patents, not abolishing them. After all, there are estimated to be more than 200,000 active, issued software patents in the United States, and most major tech companies have acquired, at considerable expense, substantial portfolios of them. Companies like Philips Electronics also argue that drawing the line between hardware and software is no longer easy, and that many patents relate to processes that were once accomplished using hardware but are now accomplished using software. Why should the modernization of the medium deprive Philips of recognition for its inventions, its lawyers have argued (albeit, in a slightly different context). See here.

It is a waste to spend money and time and other resources on the false existence of that which is based upon a lie.
The lie being that software is of patent-able qualities. Software is not of such qualities.
To use an analogy, the roman numeral system, in comparison to the hindu-arabic decimal system, is far to limiting to have been used to calculate the information we needed for us to have created much of what we have today, including computers. Yet it took 300 years for the more powerful and easier to use decimal system to overcome the wide use of the roman numeral system in mathematics and the elite accountants industry.
The key difference was the zero place holder. And of course it was easy to argue that only a fool would think nothing can have value.
Numbers and mathematics are abstractions and programming is also done using nothing but abstraction. Only here the abstractions used extend beyond math, though many will point out that it boils down to a mathematical algorithm.
What would happen should someone come along with the programming zero, that would make programming easy and powerful enough that most anyone can and would do it as they found need to. No different than using a calculator for any calculation one might need at the moment, or spreadsheet calculation, etc..
Non-novel would become more common, there would be a lot more "skilled in the art" or programming, etc.
But ultimately, software is not of patentable qualities as it is entirely made up of abstract ideas, using the natural law and right of human conscious ability to create not just abstraction but higher and higher levels of abstraction. All this has a physical phenomenon effect upon society (if in doubt, google the "trillion dollar bet" and read the transcript and realize the far reaching effect of this abstraction manipulation of value representation).
What is universally accepted as not being patentable:
three primary:
abstract ideas
Physical phenomenon
natural law
secondary:
mathematical algorithms
What happens when you try to contradict physics and nature? You have problems and even death!
It is of no surprise there are problems being caused with software patenting. It's predictable in a very calculating manner.
The mathematical zero, how simple it is, yet how empowering it is also to a small finite set of abstractions and their use.
So about the programming "zero" well its not just for programmers, but rather an identification of a human quality in ability to create and use abstractions. google "Abstraction Physics".