I see what you mean, but I was referring more to the situation where merely the existence of the product is enough to show how it's done -- e.g. the infamous "1

I see what you mean, but I was referring more to the situation where merely the existence of the product is enough to show how it's done -- e.g. the infamous "1-click" patent, which doesn't describe a technology but instead a method. My point was that a patent was supposed to be a trade: monopoly for blueprints. If nobody needs your blueprints, then why are we granting you a monopoly? That should be the yardstick, and the bias should be towards denying patents rather than granting them.