What would be the effect of closing shop and saying no new patents in the United States? I think this would be the best outcome. I mean do patent applications actually help people recreate the invention after the patent expires? If not, why should patents exist at all?
Software has it worse than traditional engineering because the field of software engineering is only about two patent life lengths old, and both development times and product life cycles are incredibly short for most things. It makes little sense that a new algorithm gets the same protection length as a better brake system for trains. Shorter life cycles also makes defering to courts comparatively less effective and more expensive, encouraging misuse of the system.
Of course software engineering isn't the only field with this problem, but it's one of few.
Patents were created to promote innovation. That hasn't been working effectively in the world of software.
The idea was, in exchange for sharing your idea, the government will protect you. So, you get some profit and a head start, and everyone else gets to build upon your idea after some period of time.
Tech giants like Google lately are not enforcing many useful and innovative patents. They create them as a defense. That says something about their view of software patents.
If you're asking for my opinion on patent reform, I'd drop the term on software patents way lower, like 3-5 years. That's enough time to generate a customer base for the filer and allow others with the same idea to have a chance to compete within his or her lifetime.
I can't speak for other fields. I would not agree that software patent reform means everything needs to be shut down.
The same problems affecting software continually affect every other industry. Software is more visible than other R&D but if software needs to be excised from patents then everything probably should.