Don Stauffer wrote: : : folks patent- ridiculous. Of course, the patent office no longer really : checks very much for novelty- let the courts decide that. : Two problems here:
1) The supremes (before the bush boffins), tried to play politics, and get congress off of its collective dead ass and fix a bad law, so they decided to make software patentable, and perhaps so called "business methods" patents.
Problem - the USPTO was not equipped (and, for that matter, still is not), to have patent examiners who are also software engineers. So, a lot of crap is approved for a patent.
2) "prior art" is ass backwards. It is better, from a legal stand point, to NOT LOOK for prior art. Then, if it is found, you can plead ignorance.
Problem - the USPTO is looked upon as a revenue center, not a cost center - another ass backwards problem. So, patent examiners are required to approve X major patents and Y minor patents per time frame, so they do not look for prior art, either.
This is another reason a lot of bad patents are issued - there is an incentive NOT to look for prior art. And, the submission is secret, so there is no opportunity to search for prior art before a patent is issued, then you have to fight to get it revoked - a very difficult process. Meanwhile, piss poor patents are still (legally) valid until they are revoked, so the patent trolls can continue to milk the (sorry) system.
And, frankly, having judges decide the legitimacy of patents is ludicrous. They know even less about technology, and still must work within the legal framework that permitted software patents in the first place.
Bruce