> I think the point with software patents is that the majority of cases tend towards the "wrong" result That's the claim, but there hasn't been much supportin

> I think the point with software patents is that the majority of cases tend towards the "wrong" result That's the claim, but there hasn't been much supporting evidence other than "that doesn't deserve a patent". The vast majoritiy of the "that was obvious" claims are pure hindsight. (Yes, some software patents have been overturned because of prior art, just as happens in other fields.) I particularly like the "that's just math" (which is often claimed wrt RSA). You never hear someone says "that's just chemistry" wrt chemical application patents. (You can't patent chemistry any more than you can patent math.)