All the people who are saying evaluating obviousness of an invention is impractically hard to analyze, are failing to see that that applies to non-software pate

All the people who are saying evaluating obviousness of an invention is impractically hard to analyze, are failing to see that that applies to non-software patents as well. The real problem with software patents is not that the rules (including non-obviousness constraint) are flawed, but rather that the execution of those rules is flawed. Fix the right thing please.