Exactly, my stance on software patents is that they do not necessarily cover the coder's method, it creates an entitlement to the result. Almost every software patent I've seen doesn't mention specific code, it just covers the result. Meaning no one can ever come up with a similar system without the threat of being sued for patent infringement. So, even if someone had a better way to make a similar system, they more than likely will get sued. "I have a patent that covers software that checks licenses over a network; therefore you can never make software that checks licenses over a network without paying me money." How does that allow for someone to do "something else"?
This isn't actually true. The summary of a patent is usually very broad, but if you read the full text it is very specific as to the method being patented. Media outlets portray patents as covering an entire concept, but really they only cover a narrow implementation of a concept.
