A more realistic first step might be "no new software patents". Otherwise it could be a pretty fierce fight with existing stakeholders, who would view abolition similarly to a nullification of a stock portfolio.
This is why there should be an opt-out of the patent system, or they can simply say all new companies can't be affected by older patents. It would be a pretty good transition - not perfect, but about as good as it gets.
I agree, although I'd make it broader, because SW patents is too tough to define and isn't the only place this problem exists.
No one really has a great definition for SW patent, especially since most SW patents are embodied as HW. Is the x86 architecture patentable considering one can implement it all in SW? Is signal multiplexing technology a SW patent? What about robotics in general?
I frankly don't think it can be done easily. I think it would be easier to say, "no patents, except drugs". And then carefully define drugs. I honestly don't think patents in the large are useful anymore, except in the case of drugs.
Given how past legislation has affected the language of software patents ("method, system, and computer program product"), I can now suddenly picture a patent claim defining software as a mechanism for producing alterations in mental states and optic nerve impulses.
I don't think the big tech companies would mind the nullification, would get a lot more objection from patent trolls and small companies that happen to hold a few key patents.
