> This presupposes that the patented invention is trivial to reproduce by mere knowledge of its existence - in which case, is that really the best use of a pate

> This presupposes that the patented invention is trivial to reproduce by mere knowledge of its existence - in which case, is that really the best use of a patent system? This seems to be the central issue with many software patents, where the "invention" is either generic, obvious, or already widespread. Take the whole set of patents covering touch screen interactions, for instance. Apple sued HTC for several patent infringements and lost, because the judge deemed things like scrolling through pictures "too obvious". The case covered four patents, as far as I remember. Apple also sued Samsung for the "slide to unlock" patent, and won, not because Samsung copied Apple, but because Apple held the patent, and it was considered valid. Thus, there is no room for any sort of simultaneous inventions here. Samsung might have come up with the idea by themselves. Apple might have patented a concept that was used by others first. And the reason why a single company was awarded exclusive ownership over it, was timing and money, nothing else.