By the way, you forget that the purpose of patents is not to allow you to get rich, it is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The relevant question is if you think progress of science is promoted by the current system, or if progress is hampered because software patent litigation puts a damper on it?
The multitouch patent, for example: Do you think Apple wouldn't have bothered with the iPhone if they couldn't patent their "invention" (which wasn't theirs either, but that's a different issue)? In that case, the patent has promoted progress. But it's sure standing in the way for ubiquitous competition and rollout of touch devices now.
Well, actually the purpose of patents IS to allow you to get rich. Why? Well, by protecting the invention, you allow the inventor to make money with it for some time. This means that if you put millions in R&D, you have a guarantee that if there's a result, you can also win back the investment. Do you really think pharmaceutical companies would pour so much money into research if whatever they invented was immediatly copied by another company which doesn't put any money in R&D.
But I agree that patents are sometimes absurd, software patents are quite absurd most of the time.
The multitouch patent, for example: Do you think Apple wouldn't have bothered with the iPhone if they couldn't patent their "invention" (which wasn't theirs either, but that's a different issue)? In that case, the patent has promoted progress. But it's sure standing in the way for ubiquitous competition and rollout of touch devices now.