The patent debate is complex, crossing ideological lines. The difference between an abstract idea and working machine can be subtle. Could the Pythagorium Theorem have been patented? Can mathematical theory derived from this theorem be patented? At the heart of most machines is mathematical and scientific theory. Often the theory is invented and tested as part of developing a potential device.
There is a large amount of controversy about software patents and business process patents. The business process patents often seem obvious. Software patents seem more of copyright issue. On the other hand, almost every machine now has embedded software.
I do not have any answers to intellectual property questions except that they deserve careful study. I do not see that traditional left-right divisions provide insight into the debate about intellectual property rights.
Why not? Are you suggesting that if Pythagoras would have exclusive use for 15 years in say 540BC that the technological development would have been delayed?
Your argument appears to be that nothing is a mystery once it is revealed, and therefore it is unfair to keep people from copying it once they have it figured out.
Separating the eureka moment from the obvious is problematic. It's usually only after the eureka moment that something seems obvious. My feeling has always been that if something such as Microsoft and the "double click" was so obvious, why didn't anyone think of it previously? Ultimately, obviousness is a matter for the courts to decide.
Software patents seem more of copyright issue.
Yes and no. Patents and copyrights convey rights to the owner. From a standpoint of encouraging innovation, a software patent may be better than a copyright because the patent is only valid for a fixed period whereas copyright claims can extend beyond the life of a patent.