This is a VERY important point: copyright (and other IP) exists to benefit the PUBLIC by promoting the creation of new works. Granting temporary monopolies is a

This is a VERY important point: copyright (and other IP) exists to benefit the PUBLIC by promoting the creation of new works. Granting temporary monopolies is a means to that end. From the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." So: some people may create software, incentivized partly by the prospect of patenting it. Other people will be unable to create or sell software, because of those same patents. The question is, which factor is larger? If software patents are decreasing the amount of good software being produced for the public benefit, then the public no longer has a reason to grant them. Has that point been reached? Many say yes. And the same logic may apply to other areas of IP.