> Getting patents is a lot like branding. The trick is to call old things new names. This sad reality is why a lot of engineers look at patents like (to use th

> Getting patents is a lot like branding. The trick is to call old things new names. This sad reality is why a lot of engineers look at patents like (to use the article's own analogy) cannibalism. Patents, IMO, would be fine if they were only granted for truly novel inventions. Jefferson's writings on patents make it quite clear he would be pretty aghast at the current state of the patent system and the prevalence of "X, but for Y" patents. See, for example: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl220.php http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letter... "I assume it is a Lemma, that it is the invention of the machine itself, which is to give a patent right, and not the application of it to any particular purpose, of which it is susceptible. If one person invents a knife convenient for pointing our pens, another cannot have a patent right for the same knife to point our pencils. A compass was invented for navigating the sea; another could not have a patent right for using it to survey land. A machine for threshing wheat has been invented in Scotland; a second person cannot get a patent right for the same machine to thresh oats, a third rye, a fourth peas, a fifth clover, etc. A string of buckets is invented and used for raising water, ore, etc., can a second have a patent right to the same machine for raising wheat, a third oats, a fourth rye, a fifth peas, etc?" But today we have SO many patents that are just "X, but on a computer". The need for true novelty has been completely lost, and with that the system has become a nightmare.