One of the interesting disconnects I see between layperson understanding of patents and legal understanding of patents is how one person's "broad and obvious" i

One of the interesting disconnects I see between layperson understanding of patents and legal understanding of patents is how one person's "broad and obvious" is another person's "novel and innovative," and the system does its best to handle that but the tension is forever there. It's illustrative to remember that Thomas Jefferson himself was sued for using a patented Archimedes Screw design on his property, that he was extremely certain he could have fought in court and overturned since the 'novel' technology in question was known to the Greeks... and he paid the patent-holder anyway because he wanted to encourage patent adoption and use. The system has forever had this tension baked in, and we just muddle through generation after generation.