You can't get a patent on a result if there are obvious ways to achieve that result. If the result is "rank web pages in order of quality", well anyone can think of a dozen obvious ways to do that. For example, you could have people vote on them or track their usage. I don't believe anyone argues that one should be able to patent a result if there's an obvious way to get that result. The scope of a patent's protection can't include anything obvious. When you file for a patent, you have to set out the legal scope of your patent's protection in the claims, and any claims that can be violated by a solution that would be obvious to people skilled in the art to which the patent pertains are invalid.

The main problem is that things that are obvious, like one-click ordering, are getting patent protection.

The development of the mechanism is the invention. But if you're the first person to figure out a non-obvious way to obtain a result that cannot be obtained any obvious way, then you should be (and mostly are) entitled to protection of that result. The scope of the invention for patent purposes is not the common sense notion of "the invention", nor should it be. This is why patents have a section called "claims" that sets our precisely the legal scope of the invention. They can't quite claim results, but they don't have to claim specific mechanisms either. The law is, justifiable, a complex balance.

If patents lasted forever, your hypothetical about ball point pens would be correct. But patents don't last for all that long. So all that would happen is Birome, in exchange for innovating using a small ball bearing to deposit ink, would get a market lead and about 20 years of exclusivity. But, after that, would have to compete on a level playing field.

It's easy to say that 20 years with just one pen manufacturer is too long. But the alternative could be 40 years with none.

And in this example it wouldn't be, since it's obvious how to do that.

We agree that you shouldn't be able to patent something if it's obvious or someone else did it first.

> The specific method you developed. Sure, that might mean an alternative method is trivial to develop and you get nothing - but guess what? All that means is that your "invention" was trivial in the first place.

This argument is invalid. Sure, seeing a particular invention and seeing the result it gets, it may then be obvious how to achieve that same result by alternative methods. But it doesn't follow that the invention itself is trivial. This is precisely why patents can't just cover mechanisms.

If you're the first person to develop a mechanism to get a particular result, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to patent the result (within reason). Otherwise, it would be too easy to get around patents by making trivial changes to the mechanism.

Imagine if you're the first person to think of routing cars around areas of high traffic in real time and develop a method to do so. Why shouldn't you be able to get a patent on the result -- routing cars around areas of high traffic for a reasonable amount of time? And, if not, what "mechanism" should your patent be tied to?

Are they arguing that they should be prohibited by law from doing this? If not, what's their point? If so, they are incredible douches.

The water pressure in the higher reservoir is a direct result of atmospheric pressure.

That's totally incorrect. There is no "surface" involved. (What surface do you think is involved?)

By "atmospheric pressure differential" we mean the difference between atmospheric pressure at the upper part of the siphon and the pressure in the lower part of the siphon, which is not atmospheric pressure.

That's like arguing that men don't cause women to become pregnant because a pregnancy takes nine months no matter how many men a woman has had sex with.

It can't work both ways. The government can't say "sure, you can have limited liability, something only the government can give you and that you pretty much need to run a business, but in exchange, you must give up some of your Constitutional rights". That's basically the definition of an unconstitutional condition.

So if the New York Times publishes an article critical of the government and the government responds by seizing their printing presses, that's Constitutional in your view because the New York Times is a corporation -- nothing more than a piece of paper?

You mean polar bears don't really drink Coca Cola?

Right, like Papa John's claiming their pizza is "better" when it's basically the same as every other pizza. What a bunch of cheaters and liars they are.

That's certainly one view of how search engines should work, and there are search engines that share this view. But the most popular search engine in the world, Google, does not share this view, and its commercial success suggests that that's not what most people want. Google biases search results based on characteristics of the person searching to try to get them the results they are personally most likely to be interested in. This tends to produce results people consider more relevant, but it does not provide an unbiased view of the Internet.