I spent the past four years of my life developing this tool for engine combustion, which exists primarily as software. If I had spent the past four years developing a better pitchfork, would you deny me a right to a patent on that tool? What is the intrinsic difference? They are both tools.
For me there are only be 2 cases were I could live with patents:
1) if R&D costs required are in the billions
2) if it requires such genius that only a single person (or 10, whatever) on this planet could invent it.
2) is not verifiable, so that cannot be a criteria
1) for medicine and such, but I'm sure it would work without patents too. But I would only allow it if they can prove that it really cost billions.
If you have the best product you don't fear the competition. You fear patents. Normally the inferior competition uses patents against the superior newcomer. I wouldn't be sure your product would not be sued by patents you have no idea even exist (and probably are very broad and generic you would never think they could apply to you).
So stop all patents now! Could be better even for your case.