There's currently a semi-interesting discussion about software patents on the XML-DEV mailing list sparked by a post by Dennis Sonoski entitled W3C Suckered by Microsoft where he rants angrily about why Microsoft is evil for not instantly paying $521 million dollars to Eolas and thereby starting a patent reform revolution. There are some interesting viewpoints voiced in the ensuing thread including Tim Bray's suggestion that Microsoft pay Tim Berners-Lee $5 million for arguing against the Eolas patent.

The thread made me think about what my position on filing software patents was given the vocal opposition to them on some online fora. I recently have gotten involved in patent discussions at work and I jotted down my thought processes as I was deciding whether filing for patents was a good idea or not. Belows are the pros and cons of filing for patents from my perspective in the trenches (so to speak).

PRO

1. Having a patent or two on your resume is a nice ego and career boost.
2. As a shareholder at Microsoft it is in my best interests to file patents which allow the company defend itself from patent suits and reap revenue from patent licencing.
3. The modest financial incentive we get for filing patents would make for buying a few rounds of drinks with friends.

CON

1. Filing patents involve having meetings with lawyers.
2. Patents are very political because you don't want to snub anyone who worked on the idea but also don't want to cheapen them by claiming that people who were peripherally involved were co-inventers. For example, is a tester who points out a design flaw in an idea now one of the co-inventers if it was a fundamental flaw? 
3. There's a very slight chance that Slashdot runs an article about a particular patent claiming that it is another evil plot by Microsoft. The fact that it is a slight chance is that the ratio of Slashdot articles about patents to those actually filed is quite small.

That was my thought process as I sat in on some patent meetings. Basically there is a lot of incentive to file patents for software innovations if you work for a company that can afford to do so. However the measure of degree of innovation is in the eye of the beholder [and up to prior art searches].

I've seen a number of calls for patent reform for software but not any that have any feasible or concrete proposals behind them. Most of the proponents of patent reform I've seen usually argue something akin to “Some patent that doesn't seem innovative to me got granted so the system needs to be changed“. How the system should be changed and whether the new system will not have problems of its own are left as excercises for the reader.

There have been a number of provocative writings about patent reform, the most prominent in my memory being the FSF's Patent Reform Is Not Enough and An Open Letter From Jeff Bezos On The Subject Of Patents. I suspect that the changes suggested by Jeff Bezos in his open letter do a good job of straddling the line between those who want do away with software and business method patents and those that want to protect their investment.

Disclaimer: The above statements are my personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in anyway.