I disagree. By that logic, math should be just as patentable as hardware, or hardware should be just as nonpatentable as math. There are distinctions, just not

I disagree. By that logic, math should be just as patentable as hardware, or hardware should be just as nonpatentable as math. There are distinctions, just not clear or easy to define ones. If you're against software patents but ok with patents in general, it must be because you believe that patents encourage innovation in general, but stifle innovation in software. If that's a valid claim, then there must be some way to make a distinction, even if it's fuzzy. Most of the distinctions in law are fuzzy. Like the line between obvious and nonobvious, for example. No one looks at the fuzziness of that line and concludes that the distinction is therefore fatuous. For the record, I'm not convinced that patents encourage innovation in general. I'm open to the idea, but it seems like the burden of proof is on patent proponents, and I haven't seen any real evidence.