Economist Robert Shiller is for them.

In 1993, the American Stock Exchange (AMEX) expended considerable resources to develop and promote its new concept of an exchange-traded fund (ETF), with its first embodiment as Standard & Poor's Depository Receipts (SPDR's). The ETF was a key innovation that made it possible for investors to hold an instrument that effectively tracked the value of a specified portfolio, such as the S&P index, with low trading costs.

But once the idea was proven successful, it was widely imitated by other organizations, depriving the AMEX of a big share of the returns on its innovation.

In one of his first (only?) attempts to market one of his innovations, Shiller co-founded a company that used a statistical model to replace human appraisers. In my opinion, that company illustrates why business process patents are a bad idea. I tried to deal with his company both while I was at Freddie Mac and when I was on my own with a web site. In both situations, they were impossible. Shiller's partner was arrogant and just plain ornery.

If Shiller's company had owned a business process patent, it would have made things even worse, because it would have kept competitors out of the business. Competitors eventually did a much better job of scrubbing the raw data needed for the models and of forming grown-up partnerships with other companies.

Left to their own devices, the markets will reward execution, implementation, and marketing, rather than pure creativity. I believe that is how it should be. The alternative--locking up creativity with business patents--only means that creative people who cannot execute effectively will be able to stifle innovation.