[eldr]

I'm no expert on the US IP system, but it seems to me like a big part of the problem is that the USPTO grants patents for ideas which are both obvious and not novel. Some more ridiculous examples are the patents on making toast and the server patent mentioned in "When Patents Attack" where over 5000 patents for "the same thing" were in existence when that one was filed. Even then the patent was invalidated on the basis that the filer failed to mention his co-inventors rather than on the basis of prior art. I'm confused as to how those could ever get through the approval process in the first place, am I missing some finer points here?

[darkarmani]

The Carmack Reverse is an easy example software developers can understand. Paraphrased: "How can something that can be solved by a week of work by a professional in the field be something that can be patented?" Sure it's novel, but it only took an expert a week to re-invent by following a causal chain of reasoning about the problem.

[sporkologist]

This of course violates the purpose of patenting in the first place, to create and market something not obvious to those currently working in the field. The fact that the patent system is that broken is pretty chilling.