Your assertion that Myrvold's view is correct isn't substantiated by anything. Myrvold has his own broad agenda which is multi-faceted. I'm not going to begin to try to fathom all of the pieces of it, nor am I willing to take the assertion at face value that since "service sector inventors" should be protected that means "business method and software patents" are valid forms of protection. There are numerous other forms of protection for inventors in the service sector and – when you actually get under the dynamics of how patents are actually applied to business method / software patents – and the corresponding economic dynamics, one can quickly draw a different opinion.

This isn't a debate that gets won with quick / pithy assertions. The sounds bites – which I know I am participating in (e.g. "abolish software patents") need real research and data to substantiate them. There are an increasing number of nerds – like me – working on this.

There are a different solutions to this – the most aggressive is just to eliminate software patents altogether. I argue that eliminating software patents would enhance innovation in the software industry – whereas the current friction created by software patents today actually slows down innovation. I give you the open source movement and a handy example of this.

The way Intel (with Sales Jock CEO) is talking, you would think that the patent Nerds are ruling over us like a rentier class in pre-revolutionary France.

But if you check the Forbes Billionaires list, it seems nicely balanced between Tech Nerds (Dyson vacuums, Page and Brin), Finance Nerds (Buffett), and Sales Jocks (Blackstone's Schwarzman, Wal-Mart's Walton, etc.).

In other words, Nathan Myrvold's view of the subject is entirely correct. Inventors in the service service deserve the same protections as inventors in the farming and manufacturing sectors. That means business method patents and software patents.

if youre a startup, writing a patent is time consuming and can be expensive. needless to say, you won't know if you officially have a patent until several years later. having an actual patent doesnt mean anything– it has to hold up in court. if youre a startup, a large company will purposely infringe to dry up your cash, and distract you.

So a moratorium on software patents until the patent office is up to the job. You get nearly the same result but avoid offending property rights absolutists such as me.

One of the secondary effects of software patents that stifles innovation is the uncertainty surrounding the actual content, grant, and legitimacy of software patents. I'd be concerned that a moratorium actually exacerbates this problem.