So you can't name a single software patent where the system worked as intended, but you DON'T think that's a valid argument against software patents? Your stan

So you can't name a single software patent where the system worked as intended, but you DON'T think that's a valid argument against software patents? Your standards for a valid argument make no sense. > An example of a software patent that I think is fundamentally "solid" is public key encryption. Some people thought of it, they developed it, it is at least as novel and clever and non-obvious as the cotton gin, so if the cotton gin should be patentable, public key encryption should also be. It's cool that they got paid for having those clever thoughts. But the goal of the US patent system isn't just to enable that payment, it's to encourage more innovation and disclosure via that payment. And also, those core inventions happened almost 50 years ago with that field getting more collaborative and less patent-using every decade. If that's the best example multiple people can come up with, then software patents are an extremely failed experiment.