I tend to agree with you, but I think there probably is a place for software patents. It makes enough sense for, for example, a compression algorithm to be patented. (I'm not happy about it, but I don't think it makes sense for a complex mechanical contraption to be patentable, but not a complex logical contraption. After all, patents are just logical explanations to begin with; you needn't have produced any sample of the item.)

It's these bullshit non-non-obvious patents that are the problem. I think we actually need to hire people at the USPTO that understand software and can recognize the ridiculousness of these things.

I just skimmed through the 1-Click patent, and there's a little more there than you might think. It details conglomerating orders and points out the (questionable) security benefits of transmitting your financial data as few times as possible. Still, there's nothing there that isn't obvious. Any decent software engineer would design basically the exact same system, given the most basic of design parameters.

Patents shouldn't be about who got there first. It should be about who created a new place to be.