Patent applications I've been party to have included source code (maybe all of them? don't recall). I think it should be required. I'm not confident that it w

Patent applications I've been party to have included source code (maybe all of them? don't recall). I think it should be required. I'm not confident that it would actually solve a lot, but it would help. We mentioned source code in a position paper on patent policy I helped write a number of years ago, https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/request-comments-and-announcement-workshop-standard-setting-issues-project-no.p111204-00020%C2%A0/00020-60532.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_com... --- For software, such disclosures are particularly poor, as the October 2003 FTC report on The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law Policy [7] notes: “Several panelists discounted the value of patent disclosures, because the disclosure of a software product’s underlying source code is not required.” [7] http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf --- The best counterargument I can make is that applicants would provide obfuscated or fake source code, just like the many other ways they cheat the application process. Still better than not requiring it. I liked the point that most counterarguments are effectively arguments that the patent absent the source doesn't constitute disclosure. > Believe it or not, many of the examiners in software have Computer Science backgrounds and are perfectly capable of this. I assume it's still the case that you need an appropriately shaped engineering degree, which does exclude many CS people. But absolutely it wouldn't be to surprising to see an examiner try to run the code. Even if they're not CS people they're technical and smart and would figure it out quick enough.