No the hardware in the CPU falls under the patent not the software using the hardware; the people making the CPU have to license the patent. Or would you claim that one can't write software for this CPU without taking a license on the patent ?
I don't think the CPU could infringe without the specific software that makes it perform the same function as the hardware. So it would only be those two things combined together that would need a license. There is a similar situation with chips that support HDMI only needing a license if you add an HDMI connector to your design.
As said before, for software copyright is enough to drive innovation and lack of patents won't stop people writing software as they can't earn back their investment. In software, patents are hampering innovations and favoring the behemoths. Even very smart programmers don't need or deserve a 20 year monopoly on their ideas in the fast-paced software world.
20 years is too long for any technology related patent. Someone knocking up some irrelevant program in their bed room then copyright is enough.
IMO copyright isn't enough for an industry wide system like DVD. I don't believe the DVD CCA supplied the code that is used in all of the players, they may have provided a reference implementation as an example but their invention was a process. Implementing the software is easy, without the patent there is no barrier to entry & they would have no way to make any money back.
Sure it would be super cool if you could rip off their work without having to pay a license fee, but that would hamper innovation more. A hacker in their bed room isn't going to produce the next disc format. It's going to be some big organisation & they are only going to do it if they have a way of protecting their investment.
AFAIK Google have patented their pagerank system, I'm pretty sure they would be upset if Microsoft just copied how it worked.