What you're quoting is the written description, which is not what the Examiner would make his/her decision on patentability on. I know some examiners, and they begrudgingly admit they gloss over the written description and head straight for the claims, which is where their decisions regarding patentability are made. That being said, you may or may not be correct about a given patent being invalid, and there are options (some far, far cheaper than litigation, i.e. inter partes reexamination) for narrowing the scope of an overbroad, invalid claim. That major players like Samsung and Google have not instigated such proceedings is suggestive.

I don't find this very persuasive. As far as I can tell, they are just looking at some sort of interpretation of the titles of some of the patents. What gets enforced by the courts are not the titles, but the claims.

I would very much like an individual to cite a piece of prior art and write of cogent argument why the claims of the issued patents are invalid. It is all too easy to fall prey to hindsight bias when dealing with patents that were filed over a decade ago.

Fair enough. For public use, see 35 U.S.C. 102(b). You will see the publication bar is separate and distinct from the public use bar.

I wasn't aware software patents were being "handed out like candy." After making a very brief search, it seems allowances are granted less frequently for software applications than many other applications. http://glennfosterpllc.blogspot.com/

Indeed, allowance rates generally have been on the decline. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/02/uspto_allowance.html?cid=60483264

Gotta love slashdot. It's much easier to be derisive and speak in generalities instead of citing any relevant evidence and constructing a cogent argument. Being published isn't necessary for software to qualify as prior art; its use need merely be public. Moreover, if you truly did come up with the patented idea first, feel free to claim your rights, that's a benefit of being in America. It really seems like a substantial number of slashdot posters suffer from extreme hindsight bias.

Aren't your statistics saying 60% of final rejections are affirmed in full and 80% are affirmed at least in part? Seems like more than jack to me.

In my experience prosecuting patents, I have found examiners are quite willing to bend over backwards to make an obviousness rejection, combining references in such a way that sometimes I have to sit back at a loss for words.

As to the issuance of any one patent that is objectively ridiculous and should never have been otherwise issued, like the swinging on a swing, humans are imperfect and that seems to be a case of an examiner being limited by the bounds of its search. Of course, the challenge for you is to find a reference that invalidates the patent :)

I have a hard time seeing how "Windows" is generic. Had Microsoft chosen another word or phrase for their operating system, I don't think I would associate the word "windows" with computers or software. At this point, I think that when someone hears the term "windows" with reference to computers, they immediately recognize it as a computer program, and that "windows" indicates the product comes from Microsoft and no other source.

I know this goes against everything Slashdot discussion board stands for, I disagree with your position, but understand and respect it.

My only question is where does this line of reasoning end? Does it only apply to software? If so, why? Does it have to do with the generally lower cost of development when compared to other industries? Or is it something else? I've never been quite sure why. Another reason I have heard is that an invention patented in a "software patent" is usually obvious. If so, should the PHOSITA for software be higher? Or should software have a different test for obviousness? I am pretty comfortable in saying the SCOTUS won't go for that.

Then let us be thankful we have the judicial system to address those instances where the PTO issued a patent they might not ought to have. No system is perfect.

To me, that suggests you do not believe there is any such thing as intellectual property, since the wrongful taking of property is usually regarded as theft. With how easily you summarily dismiss the notion of intellectual theft, I don't think I will bother to point out the folly in your position.

While I recognize and appreciate the distinction you have pointed out, I think that the method in which innovation is encouraged in the U.S. and the rest of the world could fairly be characterized as a reward. Patent systems only give inventors beginning their inventive work the promise that, if the invention is sufficiently creative and different from the prior art, they will be able to prevent others from copying their invention. This ex post facto system, to me, is equally a reward as well as an encouragement.

This is an extremely difficult determination to make. I suggest that if you make it based on those instances where there is litigation around a given patent, and more to the point the media picks up on it, then your judgment might be skewed. The value of the patent system goes far beyond what the media reports.

Copyrights and patents function very differently. One difference is the so-called independent creation, where if two people write the same code, neither having seen the others, they both have rights to use that code and obtain copyright in it. This protection is very different from the monopoly granted by a patent, which prevents all second-comers, regardless whether they knew of the patent, from practicing the invention. So when comparing copyright and patent law, one does not supplant the other, and frequently they address different issues. Boiling that down, patents protect the idea/function achieved by the code (performed by a machine, of course), while copyright protects the expression of that idea/function (the individual lines of code).

What are you relying on when you say this? Oh, and as a patent agent, I can tell you that patents do nothing simply :)

While that's true to a certain extent, one cannot overlook the value of patents in rewarding innovation by preventing intellectual theft.

I don't see how Google's actions are hypocritical. What is the link between four patents owned by Oracle and Google's entire patent portfolio? If Google's patents are a: invalid and/or b: standing in the way of progress, rest assured Google's competitors will contest their validity, much the same as Google has done here.

I meant reexamination, not reevaluation