> most of the problems haven't even existed long enough for anyone to have seriously tried and failed to solve them Bingo. Currently, it's my impression, a lo

> most of the problems haven't even existed long enough for anyone to have seriously tried and failed to solve them Bingo. Currently, it's my impression, a lot of patents are being granted for completely uncreative solutions to novel problems. New technology (multi-touch screens, for example) creates new technical possibilities; along with those possibilities come a bunch of new problems. People are coming upon these problems, solving them quite straightforwardly, and then patenting the solution. It is exactly this I want to put a stop to, because I think it's this that is doing so much mischief. Your second point is well taken. I think you'd have to show that the patent was a primary cause of the success -- which, as you say, is rarely the case. In any case, commercial success depends on a number of factors, and the courts would have to take that into account when weighing its probative value. I don't think it's quite "de facto abolition", but yes, it is both my belief and my intention that this change in the rules would rule out most current software patents. The few that remained would be for truly novel technology that would solve problems that were well known to be difficult. And those, I think, deserve to be patentable.