"The thing I can accept are cryptographic algorithms, since as an outcome we get a product"

Of all the things...

Cryptography is math in this day and age. Patents on crypto are patents on math, with only the measly "ON A COMPUTER!!!!" clause justifying their existence.

See, for example, Clifford Cocks who invented RSA before RSA did, but was unable to patent it, and thus didn't get the profits that RSA did.

He got a nice medal though.

If that's the case, then why wasn't the RSA patent revoked due to prior art?

Prior art has to be published.

For some strange reason, Her Majesty's cryptographers at GCHQ were loathe to give up all their classified goodies during the cold war. :)

But math isn't patentable. You shouldn't be able to sprinkle "math implemented as a computer program" on top of your patent application and be able to skirt this.

I just looked up the safety pin patent and it does look pretty good. I hope my original question didn't come off as confrontational. I do think we would be better off eliminating patents altogether, but I want to make sure I'm not discounting any positive effects patents may have.