I think I am possibly becoming opposed to patenting “methods” in the technology world.
“Means” as opposed to methods, in my mind, comprises the actual “how to” technology by which some “method” is seen to perform. That would be the hardware and the software code by which some “method” is observed to have taken place - what made the “method” to work, but not, in my mind, the observed “method” itself.
To me, patenting technology “methods” might be like patenting “a human directed device that uses an internal combustion engine for locomotion, wheels driven by that engine for obtaining movement, and a steering device by which a human can direct the apparatus” - under the name “Chyrsler Corporation” and then charging Mr. Ford and Mr. Cadillac and Mr. Chevrolet and Mr. Studebaker royalties just to get their cars out the door of their plants.
Preserving the patent on the means alone preserves the actual accomplishment of the company, and someone else who wants to do the same thing has to go figure out how to do it themselves. But, once they do - re-invent a means to produce the same method - they have stolen nothing from the original company; even if they learned on their own an exact same part of the puzzle.
If what is going on in the technology industries is opposite of what I think - in my ignorant opinion - is legitimate, as I just outlined it, then innovation is in fact being denied and delayed; and a ton of already approved patents for “methods” alone, ought to be voided.
Tell me I’m wrong. What’s the argument for protecting “methods’ as opposed to only protecting means.
“...innovation is in fact being denied and delayed”
Precisely!