[ysapir]

That wikipedia page quotes an article by John Barton that argues that the criteria for obviousness should be restricted. The particular quote you cite is from the section where Barton explains his proposed criteria, rather than the current criteria. The full sentence reads: "Only research beyond that done as part of normal product design and development should be rewarded with a patent. Routine redesign should not be enough, for there is no need for monopolies as an incentive for such research." [1] The word _should_ is key, it is what Barton thinks _should_ be the case, even if it isn't today.

In fact, the law as described by Barton in the earlier section of his paper shows that the non-obviousness criterion was deliberately weakened over time, specifically when the Patent Act was passed in 1952 that eliminated a requirement for a "flash of creative genius."

Anyway, I am not a law expert. I am an entrepreneur. My interest is to be able to invent without fear that after I invented and researched and showed that some form of product was viable, some large company (Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc) or a competitor or any other group would then replicate it, claiming to have arrived at the product independently. The bottom line is that it wouldn't foster innovation, it would hinder it. I would have no incentive under the patent system to go to investors and secure funds to do research if in the small chance that the research is fruitful, I will not be able to protect it.

[1] Draft version of Barton's article: http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/bhhall/ipconf/Barton901.pdf