It can only be a net win for society if the total price everyone pays to license a patent is less than the total cost of making each user reinvent it for themse

It can only be a net win for society if the total price everyone pays to license a patent is less than the total cost of making each user reinvent it for themselves for the next twenty years. That's why obvious software patents are so bad—the basics of the young field weren't already claimed decades ago, the cost of "reinvention" is so low (one-click requires what, a napkin, a crayon, and half a beer?), and the licensing prices devolve to pure rent-seeking based on the necessity of the obvious idea. What we need is some counter-balancing force that ensures patent license prices remain reasonable. Normally that's done by the threat of substitution or inventing-around, which doesn't work when USPTO screws up and allows claiming the whole problem space. The price especially needs to be reasonable for non-profit use, which is a software-specific issue made possible because our unit costs are also basically zero. It would also help if they tested patent claims for obviousness by giving someone the problem statement and seeing if they produce a solution off the cuff covered by the same claims.