I've always though trying to discriminate against "software" patents was particularly stupid.
First: it simply encourages patents where the entire computer is included in a description of the software, turning it into a product/apparatus patent.
Second: the problem most people have with software patents is not the fact that software is being protected. The problem is that software patents are rife with "inventions" that are merely a low-effort merging of existing ideas – usually ideas that are well established and the context is changed slightly.
This second point applies to any industry, not just software. Biotech industries are continually trying to patent drugs and genes using the same pattern. Fix the stupid determination of novelty, rather than discriminating against certain kinds of invention.
First: it simply encourages patents where the entire computer is included in a description of the software, turning it into a product/apparatus patent.
Second: the problem most people have with software patents is not the fact that software is being protected. The problem is that software patents are rife with "inventions" that are merely a low-effort merging of existing ideas – usually ideas that are well established and the context is changed slightly.
This second point applies to any industry, not just software. Biotech industries are continually trying to patent drugs and genes using the same pattern. Fix the stupid determination of novelty, rather than discriminating against certain kinds of invention.