How often have you heard or read about a piece of software that someone developed only because it could be protected by a software patent, about a software innovation that would have been too costly to develop if it couldn't be protected by patents?

And on the other hand, how often have you heard or read about programmers and companies worrying about unknowingly infringing on software patents, about companies getting sued by other companies that turn whole fields of software into minefields, or about developers or companies that couldn't (afford to) implement the best known algorithm for an application, because someone else had been granted a monopoly on using that algorithm.

You're just offering indirect evidence, I'm giving you the concrete fact that the US is one of the most innovative software producers.

At least in the US, you can't create a start up and just create a knock-off of an existing product: you are forced to innovate because of software patent laws. This is probably why the US is striving while countries that don't have such laws such as Chine hardly innovate at all.

But where is your direct evidence that software patents have anything to do with the US being "one of the most innovative software producers"?

I'd also argue that it's mainly copyright law and trademarks that prevents the kind of product piracy that is prevalent in certain countries with a less developed legal system, at least with regard to software products.

> But where is your direct evidence that software patents have anything to do with the US being "one of the most innovative software producers"?

That's not what I'm arguing. All I'm saying is that given the fact that US is one of the most innovative countries in the software area, the burden of proof is on those who claim that the software patent system is broken.