another problem is - measuring how well a patent office works by how many patents they grant (their purpose is to reject bad patents, it's 100% the opposite of

another problem is - measuring how well a patent office works by how many patents they grant (their purpose is to reject bad patents, it's 100% the opposite of the metrics often used) - a standard where patents are often written with the most obtuse complex language as multi layered onions, instead of clear straight forward language - no relevant consequences for most companies systematically deceiving the patent office about what they actually try to patent using artificial complex language, systematically fail to do the research into prior art and "happen" to overlook all prior art all the time - patents require a certain level of innovation _in the aspects they patent_, but in practice patent offices rarely do enforce this. A solution anyone can trivially find if they run into similar "normal" problems isn't innovation. The abstract concept of applying a concept from IRL onto games (or similar) isn't innovation. A minor tweak(1) or trivial re-combinations of existing patents isn't innovation either. etc. etc. - the patent office tends to be severely under-stocked, especially in context of AI making it easier to mass generate nonsense patents and non-clear-straight-forward language being the norm - allowing people to not (relevantly) use their patent and still sue others for using it (which is directly harming innovation and really shouldn't be allowed) - allowing absurd prices for usage permissions of patents (outside of certain especially fundamental/core patents, forgot how they are called), everyone should be able to buy _any_ patents usage right for a _reasonable_ price. Patents are for making sure companies doing innovation can re-coupe their investments, not for preventing marked competition and enforcing quasi-monopolies (1): Like a minor tweak which doesn't require tons of research, don't make a fundamental difference etc. Like think