[vrnayini]

I think we need to continue to be careful to not be so alarmed by published patent applications. Again, none of these are issued patents, but rather pending applications, which may never reach allowance from the PTO and, if they are allowed, will most likely be left with claims that have been narrowed significantly in scope in light of prior art and publicly known technologies.

There are certainly many issues with the U.S. patent system that need to be addressed, but I think it's counterproductive to not make the distinction between a mere application for a patent and an issued patent. If anything, in debating a broken patent system, our best examples to study should be broad, issued patents being used in litigation. In which case we can more productively debate either the patent's validity and/or what the scope of patentable subject matter under U.S. patent law should be.