The quoted statement is in support of the idea that software constitutes a creative work and should continue to be be eligible for copyright, not anything in su

The quoted statement is in support of the idea that software constitutes a creative work and should continue to be be eligible for copyright, not anything in support of patents. I’m not in favor of software patents, but I believe the legal repercussions of successfully convincing people that complex applications should be treated as mathematical algorithms will be almost entirely negative. I imagine the process of creating software patent applications probably varies by org. I agree the review process seems quite flawed, that’s supported by comments I’ve heard from several lawyers as well as high-profile screw ups, e.g failing to research prior art or applying the requirement of non-obviousness both inconsistently and sometimes incomprehensibly. Regarding dissemination of information, yes, my understanding is patents are a trade between the public and the inventor, the inventor receives a period of legally enforceable exclusivity in exchange for disclosing the invention to the public. My opinion is this is overkill in the software industry as we already get exclusivity (and without the need to disclose): we can conceal our source code and assert copyright protections on object code. Conditions are quite different in other industries, for instance manufacture of physical devices.