Timothy B. Lee of the Cato Institute wrote [A Patent Lie](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/opinion/09lee.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin), in which he explains why copyright is better for the software industry than patents:
> Don’t software companies need patent protection? In fact, companies, especially those that are focused on innovation, don’t: software is already protected by copyright law, and there’s no reason any industry needs both types of protection. The rules of copyright are simpler and protection is available to everyone at very low cost. In contrast, the patent system is cumbersome and expensive. Applying for patents and conducting patent searches can cost tens of thousands of dollars. That is not a huge burden for large companies like Microsoft, but it can be a serious burden for the small start-up firms that produce some of the most important software innovations.
The good news about software patents is that [they’ve been weakened](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_v._Teleflex) so that patent troll companies can’t wreak quite as much havoc as they have in the past. Now there’s not as much money in it. Apparently, [patent troll companies are getting smarter](http://www.linuxworld.com/community/?q=node/16789) about working with open source — most recently with RedHat:
> Trolls need to collect money to survive, and open source vendors can’t give it to them. The good news from this settlement [with RedHat], and [Blackboard’s](http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/020107-blackboard-no-action-against-open-source.html), is that trolls are realizing that hitting an open source company is like robbing a store where the safe is on a time lock. They can do damage and hurt people, but the money isn’t available to them.
The settlement was also [documented by Groklaw](http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080611191302741).