I've never heard a case where the do-or-do-not decision regarding a software project hinged on patents. Me neither, but that just means that patents, as they a

I've never heard a case where the do-or-do-not decision regarding a software project hinged on patents. Me neither, but that just means that patents, as they are now, don't serve their intended purpose. It doesn't mean that there's nothing that could be done to remedy that situation. That they are somehow needed to encourage innovation is a myth. Maybe it's more accurate to say that they (are intended to) prevent situation that seriously discourage innovation. If I come up with a really ingenious algorithm to do a hellishly complicated thing X, it would be nice to have the legal protection for a certain period while I struggle to get it to the point where it starts making me money. Protection from what? Protection from someone else stealing the algorithm and implementing it faster and beating me to the money making stage. Besides, they're unfair. A typical software product might have perhaps 1% patented matter, and 99% copied from the "standard requirements" of the market segment it's in. The competitors spent the money developing the market to figure out that 99%, so if you use a quid pro quo measure then they have an automatic right to the 1% innovation the new player brings to the table. First of all, the assumption that a "typical software product" should rely on a patent is not necessarily true. The company to which I was referring is in the business of developing software for semiconductor manufacturers. Their products are definitely not "typical software products". That specific market is pretty much cut-throat: there aren't many companies developing for it and, consequently, the customer always has you by short hairs. Patents are just another tool in their toolbox for dealing with the competition. Second, I don't understand why you automatically assume that the patent holder isn't one of those players who "spent the money developing the market to figure out that 99%". I'm not defending patent trolls here. I'm defending the cases in which you want to protect that 1% that distinguishes you from the competition. Third, even if the patent holder is a new player, how did you arrive at a conclusion that spending money on figuring out 99% of "standard requirements" somehow makes you have "an automatic right to the 1% innovation the new player brings to the table"? It sounds like a false sense of entitlement.