The question I have is whether or not it is the intention of the patent system to protect against someone else independently developing the same thing. If that is indeed the intention, then I am opposed to all patents because I don't want this kind of protection to exist in any shape or form.
I'm not a lawyer or historian, but I suspect that protecting against independent invention may not have been the main goal of those who created the patents system. I suspect that this kind of protection may just be a side effect of assuming that it is generally impossible to tell whether or not an invention was arrived at independently and that it is generally impossible to keep the inner workings of an invention secret.
These assumptions are not true in the same way for software as for, say, the typewriter or a particular kind of elevator or even a chemical substance. That's why it may make sense to think about software patents seperately.
I'm not a lawyer or historian, but I suspect that protecting against independent invention may not have been the main goal of those who created the patents system. I suspect that this kind of protection may just be a side effect of assuming that it is generally impossible to tell whether or not an invention was arrived at independently and that it is generally impossible to keep the inner workings of an invention secret.
These assumptions are not true in the same way for software as for, say, the typewriter or a particular kind of elevator or even a chemical substance. That's why it may make sense to think about software patents seperately.