Ed Burnette, a software developer who writes the Dev Connection Blog for ZDNet, thinks that the best lesson learned from the Research In Motion-NTP patent dispute is that software shouldn't be patented.

"While I'm glad to see these patents fall, it's sad to see that it takes so much effort to purge even obviously bad patents in very high profile cases," he writes. "What about the thousands of others that are flying under the radar?"

Ed thinks the root of the problem is that software that is created shouldn't be patented, but copyrighted. 

"When challenged, software patents are often overturned on the basis of prior art or obviousness," he adds. "But even if there is no prior art, and even if it's not obvious, software has no more business being patented than, say, an artist's signature brush strokes, the structure of a haiku, or the way a book is formatted and laid out."

The reason Ed feels this way is that he relates the art of creating software to that of fashioning a painting, or writing a book. Creations derived from those efforts are copyrighted, not patentable.

"The only solution is to ban software patents altogether, worldwide," he points out.  "Copyright law provides plenty of protection for software, just as it does for paintings, poetry, and books."