>1. You're basically patenting algorithms, which aren't supposed to be patentable.
Hardware patents just cover algorithms that have steps involving arranging atoms.
>2. There seems to be an assumption that anything new is unobvious and therefore patentable. And in computing that isn't really the case.
It isn't really the case in anything. That no one has bothered to patent yellow wrenches with beveled edges doesn't mean they should be patentable. That the software equivalent is currently more likely to be granted isn't really an issue with the idea of patenting software.
>A patent is supposed to describe how to actually do the thing. Software patents by and large don't do that.
That's an issue with particular software patents, not one particular to patenting software.
>hardware patents just cover algorithms that have steps involving arranging atoms.
Yes. Further steps have been done. Its the difference between copywriting the idea for a book, and copywriting an actual book.
>That the software equivalent is currently more likely to be granted isn't really an issue with the idea of patenting software
It's an issue with the current incarnation of software patents.
That's like saying IC cars aren't bad for the environment because we 'could' fuel them all with biofuels and have a carbon capture thing on the exhaust.
In the real world an IC car can rightfully be criticised for being bad for the environment.
>That's an issue with particular software patents, not one particular to patenting software.
Again, the issue doesn't have to be inherent to be valid.
1. Why is it any different for hardware? Hardware is nowadays designed on computers too. It's all computers until someone sends it over to Asia where it is then manufactured.
2. Again, why is that different for hardware?
I really wonder why my friends who studied mechanical engineering have the privilege of making money with their inventions, while I cannot ...
That hardware was developed on computer is irrelevant.
A piece of hardware designed with a ruler and protractor is indistinguishable from one designed on a computer.
Re 2. If you 'invented' some trading cards based on HN members. That would be new in the sense that it's never been done before. But that doesn't make it patentable. We all have a sense that that's just an obvious iteration on a theme. But trading cards based on HN members, on a computer somehow becomes patentable.
You can make money from your invention. There's still copyright. If you want to take an algorithm and turn it into an actual product, provide an implementation then I'm not averse to patenting.
Currently we're in a situation where you could come up with the idea of listening to music 'on a computer' patent that very broad, basic thing. Without putting any work into an actual implementation.
I agree with your basic point, but this has very little to do with the difference between hardware and software, but boils down to the question of whether there is an actual implementation.
Maybe that should be the requirement then, instead of saying "software patents cannot exist, but hardware patents can".
1. You're basically patenting algorithms, which aren't supposed to be patentable.
2. There seems to be an assumption that anything new is unobvious and therefore patentable. And in computing that isn't really the case.
I have no programming training but still independently invented lz compression. Something that is deemed patent worthy.
3. A patent is supposed to describe how to actually do the thing. Software patents by and large don't do that.