What does /g/ think of software patents and how can they be fixed?

>>59485565
Patent attorney reporting in here.

>patents always seem to be used for more sinister purposes like hold back any competition or innovation.
Don't believe what the marketing people say. Too often they say that their patents will practically murder their competitors in their sleep, occasionally adding that generic "Mwahaha!"

Usually you can get a way around but too often that involves doing actual R&D when management rather prefer to talk about the R&D they do that nobody else in the company has seen any traces of. Remember that "GIF patent"? Massively overblown. Mind you also a classical licensing disaster by Unisys et al. but that didn't matter much to them. I remember back then one guy proposed replacing the LZW algorithm with a non-patented alternative but was promptly shot down by guys who had a genuine mission to saddle up for.

I work in tech. I get paid roughly $5k bonus for every patentable feature I am a major part of. So to me, it's great.

>>59486037
You're what's wrong with the world

>>59486958
my company would patent it regardless as a preemptive measure. Only difference that would transpire from me refusing on principle would be that I wouldn't get the bonus.

>>59485887
i thought you couldn't put a patent on code the same way you can't patent a book or an algorithm

>>59488158
you thought correctly

>>59488236
So why are we in a thread about software patents if there is no such thing as software patent ?
Is this a ruse ?

>>59488259
Functions in software can be patented. Well, technically, functionality can be patented. Not the code itself.

>>59485887
What about patent trolls?

>>59488259
UX elements can be patented