| > "People seem to presume that patents are on ideas..." Pure software patents are, by definition, exactly equivalent to patents on ideas, expressions, really large numbers, etc. Good for you for getting a couple of patents, seriously. But if they really do cover just software, then you just patented bits of speech, literally. The patent system was never intended to cover that stuff, and you only got away it with because of insufficient guidance from the courts over the past couple decades. I believe this situation will be rectified eventually, and patents like yours will once again not be allowed. > "... and that people are patenting really obvious ideas." This is exactly the case in the lodsys hubub, as just one timely example. You don't have to look to hard to find many others. > "there is no need for reform, that I can see, as all these allegedly bogus patents would be quickly thrown out if they really were as obvious as is claimed and if there really was the abundance of prior art, as is claimed." You're joking right? In all the discussions swirling around this issue, rarely do even the most intransigent defenders of the status-quo say that there is absolutely no need for reform. Even the most obviously bogus software patents require millions of dollars to invalidate; combined with the patent office's utter inability to properly evaluate software patents, the system is ripe for racketeering. |