[vel0city]

> absent this patent, would this technology have been invented anyway (within a reasonable timeframe)?

This would be the criteria of non-obviousness that already exists in US patent law. The problem is it seems like lots of patent agents seem to approve what lots of people "skilled in the art" would consider obvious (one-click checkout? shopping cart? really?!). Which then requires some level of litigation to have a lot of people "skilled in the art" to testify of the obviousness of the patent.

IMO a lot of these patent issues we see today could be solved if we had more patent agents and more skilled patent agents, but then we've got a ton of otherwise smart engineers and other kinds of people spending their days reviewing patents instead of actually making new things.