I see a lot of people say that software shouldn't be patentable, but I actually think the real problem is the "ordinary skill in the art" test seems to be entir

I see a lot of people say that software shouldn't be patentable, but I actually think the real problem is the "ordinary skill in the art" test seems to be entirely broken / almost absent in that domain. A lot of high value software patents seem to be things that would be in the realm of a solid candidate to come up with on the spot in a 30 minute interview for a programming job, and not because the technique is "known". Compressing individual channels is definitely something that sounds in the realm of good intern candidate to be able to come up with the idea on the spot in an interview. So the problem isn't really software parents intrinsically, it's that they are so absurdly out of line with the "invention costs" such that "something an average programming intern would be able to come up with independently has a high chance of actually being patented". If the parents were only actually for "nonobvious to someone who hasn't been exposed to it before" things then they wouldn't really be a problem.