I think the only solution is to require objective evidence of non-obviousness. The subjective approach, where the patent examiner decides whether the idea seem

I think the only solution is to require objective evidence of non-obviousness. The subjective approach, where the patent examiner decides whether the idea seems obvious, is just not working -- particularly for software. Such objective evidence could consist of successful publication in a peer-reviewed journal, for example, or of providing published references that say that the problem being attacked is known to be difficult, or of showing that others have tried to solve the problem and failed. In short, the burden of proof needs to be on the applicant to prove nonobviousness, not on the examiner (or the defendants in a lawsuit) to prove obviousness.