Pharma patents are less abstract. They patent a product, not the idea of making a product.<p>Changing a pallete was a solved problem. &quot;Doing something when it&#x27;s a time&quot; was a solved problem. But if you change a CLUT &quot;becuase it&#x27;s a time&quot; your software belongs to someone else. It seems like the only innvoation here is observing a need discovered by health researchers, and patenting the existing components of the solution before someone else does.<p>I&#x27;m would find it a bit suprising if someone on HN really thought that changing a CLUT because of the time is so hard that no one could figure out how without the promise of a government granted monopoly on the idea.<p>I will hasten to add that actually implementing, marketing, and maintaining a real life multi-platform proprietary solution sounds hard, in the sense of being plenty of work, and I think lots of people would gladly pay for that service.<p>The question we should be asking is: where is the public good in the government intervening to reduce competition in this space by creating a new abstract property right?