We have our common ground in that the current system is broken. My example of a single algorithm was based on the premise that for any algorithm, others can(ar

We have our common ground in that the current system is broken. My example of a single algorithm was based on the premise that for any algorithm, others can(are) incorporated into it (the algorithm can become synonymous with a cog, which would itself be patentable as well). Therefore, by my viewpoint, the macro level is identical to the micro level. The level of detail in patent applications for physical devices are mindnumbing. A key method of overcoming this problem is by using references to other patents. In this way, you could hold patents X, Y and Z and apply for a third patent A that combined the patents into a macro system without having to detail X, Y and Z all over again. My opinions on how to fix it are based on a blank slate system, all software patents should be of this level of detail, etc. rather than a just "going forward they should be". With that level of detail in a patent, resolving unintentional infringement is trivial while still providing the same output by simply referring to the patent and adjusting your implementation accordingly. This also means that prior art is easier to assess. The difficult part would be obviousness, but given the proper staff and training can be dealt with. EDIT: Reading your recent response to another commenter below, I don't want to give off the impression that I think any current software patents should be maintained. I think they should be all completely removed (or required to be resubmitted fitting new requirements that include specific details on implementation). My ideas are in the "dream world" where the rigor was applied since the first software patent was applied for.