Okay, here's my argument against
computer software patent trolls.
Since IANAL,
attacks from knowledgeable
readers are requested although
I can't promise a good response
because I know next to nothing
about patent law although
am learning and if my start up
works may have to learn.

Dear Patent Court Judge:

Don't worry, I'm not going to throw
rotten tomatoes at you now.
And, no, I didn't slash the tires
on your BMW 7 Series.

But here's what's wrong with
likely most software patents
(or patents on devices
consisting of routine computer
hardware but with some
new software).

We start with three parts:
(1) Real problem to be solved.
(2) Some "abstract" ideas for how to solve
the problem.
(3) Using the abstract ideas,
some software to solve the problem.
The users/customers use the software.

Okay, now we understand that
solving real problems (1)
is important but that
we can't patent abstract ideas
(2).

For more clarity an abstract
idea might be just how to
manipulate some data in
a way a clerk could be taught to do.
We can't patent the clerk or their
work, right?

Well, for more, the abstract idea
might be some applied math or
some of the math of physics or
engineering. Since that's
abstract stuff, we can't patent it,
right? Moreover, before computers,
mathematicians and scientists
commonly did such mathematical
manipulations by hand arithmetic,
that is, with paper and pencil.
No opportunity for patents there,
right?

So, on to the software (3):
Assume, as is usually the case,
the software is just something routine
(for software)
to have a computer do the
data manipulations specified
by the abstract idea,
what we could teach a clerk,
what's in the math, or
what the person with the abstract idea
100 years ago
likely did with paper and pencil.
That is, the person with the
abstract idea 100 years ago
could tell a clerk how to do
the data manipulations and not
get a patent but now can tell
a computer how to do the
same data manipulations but
get a patent? Something's
fundamentally wrong here.

In particular, assume that
without the abstract idea, the
clerk would have no idea
at all how to do the data manipulations and the
computer programmer would have
no idea at all how to
write the software. So,
all that's crucial or original
is just the abstract idea and not
the routine software.
That is, between (2) the abstract
idea and (3) the computer software,
only (2) is crucial or original
and (3) is routine.

So, with this scenario, why the
heck grant a patent on the
computer software (3) when
we can't get a patent on the
abstract idea (2)?

But not all software is like
that. Instead, some software
is tricky stuff. E.g., how the
heck to backup a relational
database while it is being
used and changed? One might
argue that just how to do that
could be, and really should be,
written up as an abstract idea
and maybe even some form of
math and, thus, not be patentable,
but sometimes all there is
is the computer software.
So, maybe, maybe, I'm not fully sure,
such software, or a computer with it, could deserve a patent.

Generally, then, I conclude that
most software patents have to be
based on bad thinking when we
can't patent the crucial,
logically prior abstract idea.

Finally, let me be helpful:
When you get a case of a software
patent, just rule right away
that the patent is invalid
and take a nice long vacation
with the time you would have
spent listening to nonsense
about that case! Take along
some good hiking shoes or a
good book!