Why, then, does the software industry want patents at all? Software firms, in the main, don't rely on software patent in fundamental ways—they innovate to make a better product.

There is some interesting information in this article, but there are also some conclusions I don't like. I don't think the Stallman "all software patents are bad" solution is the right answer. I've seen software patents used by entrepreneurs to sell their companies. Without them, you either have to become Microsoft or you die. Furthermore, I've certainly seen Microsoft collect on patents, from powering mice from the serial port to displaying text on television sets. I think the problems are:

1. Obvious patents are bad. The standard for obviousness used by the PTO is very, very weak. They need a completely new perspective on how to assess this.
2. Patents should not be issued for things you can't actually do, even if you might be able to do it in the future.
3. Heres a radical idea: If you could not have copied the patented product you didn't violate the patent. The ensures that obvious ideas aren't covered, and it ensures that patent trolls aren't covered either. No one is going to independently invent RSA. However, if you invent wireless email you're going to have to actually get a product out there that people might have seen before you can argue that someone might have copied you. (I realize they might have read the patent database, but they didn't. The patent database is almost completely useless. It was designed as a thing for engineers to read, and yet engineers cannot read it for fear of criminal liability lest they violate something. It should be done away with.)