Not to derail this conversation further but as far as software patents go I've been wondering for a while why somebody doesn't try this defense: In order to ha

Not to derail this conversation further but as far as software patents go I've been wondering for a while why somebody doesn't try this defense: In order to have a valid patent you need to share a sufficiently detailed design in the patent application. What constitutes a sufficiently detailed design? One that a current professional in the field could produce with no further input from the patent holder and secondly one that if given to two different implementers results in the practically the same widget. If either of these aren't true, the patent holder has essentially not held up the spirit of the law in so far as patents are meant to contribute back to the public. I'm on mobile now, so I'll stop there but I think you get the idea. For software the practical implication is that you need to submit your source code or pseudo code as part of a valid application,because much like a mechanical blueprint that is the design for software. Not: Input--->block diagram--->output. With that level of spec I could patent strong AI. I know some software patents are more sophisticated than that but I think most fail the test above. I honestly don't know if this has been tried before and shot down or what. Can anyone comment on that? Also as far as that goes, if the patent holder were to share their code in this fashion, and it passed all the other requirements then I wouldn't really have a problem with it.