Wrong. The people who live under the law are equally well qualified to judge that.
We can't write a law that says "good patents are good, bad patents are bad" there needs to be a tangible, comprehensible delineation between good and bad patents that can be applied to things not yet invented... that's the challenge.
I'm not sure how you came to your response at all, to be perfectly honest. I'm certainly not saying that lawyers are the only people who should be involved. I'm saying, if software engineers want to help... they need to actually help instead of just pretending like its trivial to delineate the good from the bad. It isn't. Really, the point I'm making is that, as experts in the field, if you cannot come up with a better delineation than simply stating "good" or "bad" - how is that you expect lawyers to do a better job?
To further my point, that you responded the way you did is evidence that software engineers aren't actually engaging in the problem and are just sitting on the sidelines having tantrums because things aren't going the way they want.
Tell us: is this a "good patent":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfish,_LLC_v._Microsoft_Corp.
How about this?
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7818399B1/en?oq=us7%2c81...
Both of these are considered valid, post-Alice.
My point being, I don't think you or others here appreciate that challenge, and instead just do things like you are doing here, where you ignore the questions I pose to you, and instead ask me to defend these patents. I never said either of those were good patents or should be patents... so why am I being asked to defend them?
The crucial question is... can you provide a better delineation between good and bad patents besides just facially calling them good or bad? It doesn't appear to be that you can do that. Given that you know more about the technology than lawyers do, how is it that you suppose attorneys make this delineation?
As a matter of convenience, I'm not going to respond if you don't answer my question, because it will be clear to me that you are not reading or engaging with my posts because this will be the third time I've posed this issue to you, when you've completely ignored it the first two times in order to step up onto your soapbox while repeating the categorical fallacy I accused you of.
There's a lot more patent litigation than obscenity litigation, so I don't think that's a workable stadnard. Also with much more money at stake. And given the responses here... strong feelings as well. So I don't think that really works given the complaints here.
> This is a prime area for courts to provide some judgment, but only if they had a clear set of criteria (not necessarily a bright line, but a set of criteria as to what makes a software patent sufficiently "inventive") on which to judge software patents, which they definitely don't have today.
That's not true. Patents today have to be just as inventive as they were before.
To show how you are proving my point... I asked... "hey software engineers, help us attorneys out and tell us where the line should be" your response was "well, there is no clear line and I can't help you find one but judges should really provide one..."
I just want to reiterate that if technologists cannot delineate a clear line between the good and bad software patents... please literally explain how a judge will be able to...
