This is another excellent point. The standard (traced back to Thomas Jefferson and in The Constitution) is that patents are intended to be granted on "invention

This is another excellent point. The standard (traced back to Thomas Jefferson and in The Constitution) is that patents are intended to be granted on "inventions" that are "novel and non-obvious"[0]. Obviously, as shown in cases like this, that's highly subjective and as I've been educated, this all comes down to a jury (with the games of jury selection and all) - a bunch of random people off the street with no background or understanding of any of this - and that's just how the attorneys want it. In modern times "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"[1] usually ends up having the opposite effect. Literally in The Constitution (a document from 1787) - Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. [0] - https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/03/05/balancing-innovation-competition-thomas-jeffersons-view-obviousness-mechanical-inventions/id=130589/ https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/03/05/balancing-innovation-compe... [1] - https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-1/ALDE_00013060/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-1/...