How would he be capable of making that distinction? For us, people who work in the field, it is often simple to say, but would you be qualified to make such jud

How would he be capable of making that distinction? For us, people who work in the field, it is often simple to say, but would you be qualified to make such judgments on patents about chemistry? Of course, in the perfect world, the patent office would pay enough to employ an expert on everything. But even still, if a world-class researcher on semiconductors, doing experiments nobody in the world has ever done before, walks into the patent office with this piece of germanium that has a few electrodes stuck into it, and explains how introducing voltage between these two modulates the voltage between the these two, would the examiner understand it? Or would he say: "Oh, this is just the same thing that crystal radios use, on a different material. It's a neat idea, but it's not /that/ revolutionary." What I am trying to say is that not only would your idea not help, but it could actively hurt, for the same reason giving policemen that are ineffective at catching criminals more power does. If someone is unable to judge on the validity of something, giving him more power to do so can only hurt. Also, from your post one can read that you think the patent office made the 1-click patent as powerful as the patent on transistors. This is just not true -- the patent office does not give strength to patents, the justice system does. Just because you have a patent on the wheel (like a guy in Australia does) doesn't mean you get to charge everyone biking -- for your patent to be used, it must be brought in front of a judge first. There, the patent can be judged much better than it ever could be in a patent office, because it is always adversarial, and the venue is as clean as we can make it.