Even at the risk of sounding like a broken record...
Public disclosure is only part of the story. The other part is to allow protecting the cost of an invention. If there was no protection there would be less incentive to invest in r&d to come up with new idea.
This is where the problem lies with software patents (IMHO): A "software invention" does not cost anything.
I will lean out and say that there is no idea in software that is worth anything by itself.
Instead it is the expression of that idea that has value, and that is protected by copyright.
(I'm still waiting to be shown a software patent of an idea that would not have seen the light of day without a legally granted monopoly)
"I'm still waiting to be shown a software patent of an idea that would not have seen the light of day without a legally granted monopoly"
Are you saying that "software type people" will always release their ideas publicly cause they are just cool or are you saying that software is so intrinsically intuitive that any concepts unique to software will just come about?
What I am trying to say is that all software patents I've seen so far are for "epiphany" type ideas. Ideas that did not need an elaborate initial setup or have any cost associated with them. Ideas folks have in the shower, etc.
Hence society as a whole does not benefit from these monopolies because folks have these ideas anyway. The cost of software lies in the implementation, which is protected by copyright.
You are right, though, I glanced over the point that patents allow you to publish your idea without fear that somebody else will beat you at your own idea. That again is provided that the idea is actually unique and other folks could not just come up with it as well (in the shower :) ).
IMHO the bad of software patents far outweighs any good that can come from them and the only folks who benefit greatly are lawyers and companies that would like to prevent each other from competing.
"Ideas that did not need an elaborate initial setup or have any cost associated with them."
Ahh. I see. Ok. Ya. I had an "epiphany" idea in software. Invested quite a bit in R&D to see if it worked. It did not. A while later, had an epiphany on the epiphany and so on.
The final solution, which is patent pending, took me quite a few years and quite a bit of money (not including opportunity costs) to figure out. It could be I'm just not that smart and that is why it took me so long. However, I've never seen anyone implement this type of technology. No patent, startup, software that exists already. I've seen people over the last 20 years try to solve the problem I've solved, but without success.
Would this fall under something that should not be patented?
Yeah, that's an interesting case then.
Without knowing the idea it is hard to say.
The key question (IMHO) is whether a patent on this would be in the interest of society as a whole. I.e. would you still try to make the idea work even if there was no patent? Or would you not even try to development anything around this because of the fear of somebody stealing your idea and making money with it?
Initially, if I did not have some kind of IP protection, I would not have taken any risk of going forward with it. I would have chosen something a lot less risky.
However, after the fact, it really doesn't make much difference. Now, I would rather have the IP protection to assure openness and standards.
Public disclosure is only part of the story. The other part is to allow protecting the cost of an invention. If there was no protection there would be less incentive to invest in r&d to come up with new idea.
This is where the problem lies with software patents (IMHO): A "software invention" does not cost anything.
I will lean out and say that there is no idea in software that is worth anything by itself. Instead it is the expression of that idea that has value, and that is protected by copyright.
(I'm still waiting to be shown a software patent of an idea that would not have seen the light of day without a legally granted monopoly)