Russel Winder wrote: ""we" here in the UK do not allow patents on software."
Good info. I would seem, then, that establishing a software company's home base in the UK is a better proposition that establishing one in the USA. Maybe. There's still the issue that a large amount of innovation is readily apparent upon release of a new software that copycats, especially ones with more funds and/or manpower, can cannibalize the inventor's work. And if one is locked-out of the USA market with the software, the UK might be worse than the USA for a software company. Can software developed in the UK be sold in the USA if it renders something patented in the USA? "It is currently explicitly stated as not being patentable in its own right. Software within machines can be covered by a patent for the machines, but software cannot be patented on its own." So are companies taking advantage of that "loophole"? Does the machine have to be novel in a way other than by the novelty that its software affords it? "Tere is no conspiracy here, it is just the big corporates making sure the tools of creating monopolies and ensuring only they are in control of innovation are used to best legal effect. Of course it means anyone who writes software has to know about every software patent worldwide so as to ensure they do not violate. In case people didn't know: lack of knowledge of a patent is not a defence. Patents apply to you even if you didn't know about the patent." The "unrecognition" or "blinding of one's eyes to" the fact that many, many inventions can and are independently developed, is troublesome, for sure. I wasn't going to bring up "crime against humanity" for this post, but then I read that last thing you wrote.