>I will just point out that the amount of litigation that has occurred and will occur in the future is actually a better justification for the "clear criteria,

>I will just point out that the amount of litigation that has occurred and will occur in the future is actually a better justification for the "clear criteria, unclear boundary" approach (like how we define pornography) rather than a one-size-fits-all boundary, which would be pretty much impossible to draw anyway given the breadth of human knowledge. I believe that you are asking for the latter, correct? No it's not. It makes litigation much more expensive and leads to the exact problem people here are complaining about "bad software patents shouldn't exist!" >There is no question that they have to be inventive. The question is how "inventiveness" is defined with respect to software under the (unquestionably true) idea that laws of nature cannot be invented. Since algorithms are arguably like laws of nature, there are very unclear rules right now about what kinds of software innovations reflect "invention" vs "discovery," particularly post-Alice. I'm well aware. I'm pointing out that saying good and bad hasn't gotten us the solution so until someone proposes something better, software engineers need to realize that we are stuck here. You are once again, not providing a delineation between what is validly inventive and invalidly inventive. If the technologists can't do it, how can a judge.