[karajorma]

It's too late; TrashMan has already retreated into his shroud of epistemological anarchy. At this point it's like trying to track the mouse after it's escaped into the wall.

Yep. That's why I'm not going to bother answering him.

[Kosh]

In theory, to get a patent you need to prove that the invention is new, useful, and non-obvious, and they often get shot down in court if the definitions are too vague.

In reality because of patent quota's you can get patents for almost anything if it already doesn't have a patent on it. There was a news story a while back about an American with the most patents (except Edison), and all of his patents were for flower pot designs.

[Tomo]

There's room for improvement, to be sure. But it's demonstrably false to claim that the requirements aren't there at all. The problem is insufficiently stringent standards, not the lack of them.

Actually, the problem is the system.
There are three key failures in the US system:

1) Patents in the US are filed in secret. Thus there is no way to challenge them until they have already been granted, and that requires very expensive lawsuits.
- The patent office are clearly unable to do any proper checking themselves, given the number of ludicrous patents issued.

Patents in the European Union are filed in public. Thus anyone can challenge them very cheaply by sending the prior art to the Patent Office.

2) Patents are permitted for software algorithms and business processes.
The former does not require patent protection - they have copyright.
The latter provides benefit to the inventing company by making them more efficient, and can be protected by NDAs, so they also do not require a patent.

3) Extremely broad patents are also permitted.

Right now, the US is in the position whereby a company could patent a way of answering the telephone!

[Rian]

Actually, the problem is the system.
There are three key failures in the US system:

1) Patents in the US are filed in secret. Thus there is no way to challenge them until they have already been granted, and that requires very expensive lawsuits.
- The patent office are clearly unable to do any proper checking themselves, given the number of ludicrous patents issued. Patents in the European Union are filed in public. Thus anyone can challenge them very cheaply by sending the prior art to the Patent Office.

I agree with you. Currently patents are automatically published after eighteen months whether or not they've been approved yet, but it would be better if they were open from the beginning.

2) Patents are permitted for software algorithms and business processes.
The former does not require patent protection - they have copyright.
The latter provides benefit to the inventing company by making them more efficient, and can be protected by NDAs, so they also do not require a patent.

3) Extremely broad patents are also permitted.

I would argue that these points fall under insufficiently stringent standards.

I have no idea why you're trying to turn your beef with the US patent system into a fight with me. I do not and have never claimed that the US system is superior to Europe's or anyone else's. I provided evidence that a specific statement (that the US does not have a new/useful/obvious requirement at all) is false. This does not in any way imply that the system is above criticism, or that your other criticisms are invalid — in fact I agree with them.