Yeah, I agree that the "math" argument is too simplistic. There are plenty of algorithms, numerical models, etc, which can require massive capital expenditure t

Yeah, I agree that the "math" argument is too simplistic. There are plenty of algorithms, numerical models, etc, which can require massive capital expenditure to develop -- not because they're hard to code, but hard to devise. The same rationale for why we should have patents on mechanical devices applies to these efforts (some argue all patents should be abolished, but they seem to be in a small minority). The problem is with the protection of "inventions" which are obvious or non-innovative, not with patents of one type of invention over another.