Patents stifle innovation by preventing one from building on the work of
others. It is inefficient to have to repeat work just because a component of
your project is NIH.
The government should break up monopolies. Patents allow it to grant them
instead. This incentivizes companies to pursue frivolous patents to hinder
their competitors instead of coming up with new ideas.
"But how will developers make money?" I reject the assumption that coercive
acquisition of wealth is the only motivation for innovation. Plenty of free
software projects rely on volunteers and donations. Without software patents
and proprietary licenses, they would be able to achieve even more because
they would spend less time performing redundant work. However, even if we
pretend that software cannot be created without a profitable business model,
Red Hat proves that patents and proprietary licenses are unnecessary in order
to profit from software development.
"But what if I have an idea that I can't realize without funding?"
Crowdfunding or a Red-Hat-like business model can solve this problem without
the disadvantages of antisocial software patents.
Software patents reward companies who can afford a large team of lawyers and
punish potential innovators who have to rely on the strength of their ideas
alone. They don't magically make people more imaginative.
