[kelseyfrog]

Serious question: is it a testable hypothesis?

If it's not possible to verify that the system is fulfilling its purpose, and if the general consensus is that it doesn't fulfill its purpose, then what do we get out of saying that "encouraging inventors to publish their work" is it's purpose? It feels like it's mass self-delusion at that point, and for who?

[i_k_k]

I don't know how to test this in an experimental way because I don't know how to make it repeatable.

I can say anecdotally that I've used non-software patents to figure out how to level a door via its hinges, find out how Pop Rocks are made, and understand how they keep air sickness bags from leaking. Nothing earth shattering, but interesting. It is worth noting that I could easily follow all of these even though I'm a complete non-expert on any of the subjects.

I've never gotten anything out of a software patent. I have a hard time even reading mine. This leads me to the hypothesis (which seems testable) that software patents are particularly broken.