While I agree that we are better off without software patents, copyright does not fill the same role. Copyright protects against direct duplication of a work,

While I agree that we are better off without software patents, copyright does not fill the same role. Copyright protects against direct duplication of a work, while patents protect against a range of possible implementations. For example, if you install a copy of Microsoft Word on your computer off of a friend's CD, you are violating Microsoft's copyright. If you instead write your own word processor from scratch, then you are not violating; Microsoft's copyright is independent from the copyright you hold on your word processor. But if Microsoft has a patent on a fundamental aspect of word processors, then your new word processor violates the patent, and Microsoft can limit what you can do with it. The question is: Is the "risky and costly project" the act of implementing the word processor, or the act of inventing word processors in the first place? (And: Do patents provide incentives for these projects?)