I'm not sure I understand what you are saying in your response. My point was that we have a system where examiners are overwhelmed and underpowered, and more r

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying in your response. My point was that we have a system where examiners are overwhelmed and underpowered, and more recently, incentivised to "grant anything that moves". We have a system that is fundamentally designed to reward the people who pay. Significant filing and legal resource fees. Prosecution fees, to issuance and then in subsequent disputes. Increasingly, you can't even "enter the game" without deep pockets. (Except, I guess, to "sell" to one or another IP troll. Essentially making you their agent, rather than the reverse.) Putting us on the road to a class-based system with regard to patent (and perhaps IP more generally) rights. Decide that intellectual property falls out of common property. It is a licensed, limited monopoly. Regulate it as such. Review it closely, and grant it with suspicion and due investigation. How are you going to define such a system? Not on the basis of fee-based service and the primacy of private ownership (ueber alles). Monitor how things proceed, and when they start to get out of kilter, adjust. IP is not some sacrosanct right; it's a tool. Use it effectively. But... large portions of the populace continues to be sold propaganda to the contrary. Too stupid to pay the price it takes to effectively manage the IP commons. (A corresponding point in all this: People "lament the off-shoring of jobs", but buy all their cr-p from overseas producers who benefit from flaunting the IP rights that elevate domestic producers' costs. Too stupid to see the hypocrisy in this, not to mention the self-destructive nature of the behavior. One might argue that they are circumventing a broken rights system. In which case, why do they continue to subject domestic producers (and so, generalized, themselves and their own employment) to it? Or, one might argue that those IP rights are a benefit to society. In which case, why are they circumventing them in their own actions? For myself, I'd say that some rights are legitimate -- meaning beneficial to society -- and others not. By ignoring the distinction, we reduce individual choices to immediate self-motivation and short term benefit, but abdicate any coherent policy necessary to long term benefit. We'll never have a perfect system. But it could be made less FUBAR than it is. If not, we really are screwed.)