[lugg]

I couldn't find the answer but did come across this interesting historical take on software patents.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/24/business/microsoft-loses-c...

> The Patents and Trademark Office, which began issuing software patents only a decade ago, has been accused of having inadequate expertise in software to judge what is truly novel.

Nice to know nothing has changed in a decade.

[rspeer]

Two decades, even.

[lugg]

I think they could solve all their problems by just hiring a handful of geeks and OSS enthusiast's like myself to lay down some ban hammers.

While thinking about it a little more deeply let's give them the benefit of doubt for five minutes and assume they did hire a bunch of geeks to do this. Is there any possibility the problem simply can't be solved easily? What seems complex and patentable today may in fact seem completely obvious and novel in ten years when it actually shows up in court or even just 5 years from now once it finally gets reviewed and accepted.

In searching for prior art, is it actually possible to go back in time on the wayback machine and check for these types of obvious issues with the claim?

Something to think about anyway. Disclosure: kiwi here. We did some form of reform already, havtn t noticed anything adverse thus far.

Would be interested to hear if anyone has come across problems yet.