The anti-patent patent

Here we describe a novel method for the prevention of the destructive and ultimately harmful practice of patenting of all possible small fragments of software.
The invention requires #1 an instruction set (including all derivative works) covered by the a.p.p and not encumbered by other weaker / less potent anti-patent (if at all) patents.
Hereby all software based/implemented on the a.p.p instruction set shall be free from external patents applying to similar software on different instruction sets (as per the basis of patenting allows), and shall also be free of patents itself.

>>16
That would lead to lower prices for the consumer due to competition, and technology would propagate faster to the point where it can benefit the common man.

>>17
That's how things are already. The information which becomes public through the process of applying for a software patent is less than can be obtained by looking at the machine code.

>>20
Why would they risk being sued? If use of a product is considered risky by the inventor, they could offer it to the public with no warranty. This is already how most freeware is distributed, they explicitly refuse to take responsibility if the program formats your hard drive.

>>21

In the same way you have to work hard/smart to create some novel software patent.

Placing restrictions on redistribution of software is creating artificial scarcity. Once software is created, there is no significant cost to reproducing it.

However computer programs are already known because of decompilers. They need patents right now.

Reverse-engineering is already illegal. Anyone who's willing to decompile software isn't going to be stopped by a patent.