For most CS students/programmers, I'd wager that being a patent examiner isn't very alluring. This is even more evident at career fairs where representatives from the USPTO have to get in your face to grab your attention. You just don't see too many students lining up to talk to them, rather than say, Google or Microsoft.
So why not give your opinion, and add to the debate? Do you think most software patents are non-obvious? How can a software patent be non-obvious? All programs are pretty obvious. Algorithms, not so much, but then you're talking more mathematics, which should not be patentable anyway.
>"All programs are pretty obvious. Algorithms, not so much."
How do you expect anyone to respond to something like that? Are you suggesting programs are not algorithms? Can you point to an authoritative reference explaining the difference?
I gave my informed opinion on patents, unfortunately this site is turning into reddit just like reddit turned into digg.
There's a big difference between "System and apparatus to display 'hello world'", and say an encryption algorithm.
Yes it's a blurred line, but I'd say most programs are todo lists, rather than complex algorithms of scientific merit.
For example, say the software that runs facebook - that's pretty much going to be 'grunt work' - lots of building blocks, shoved together, to make something work.
But a compression algorithm, has more of a basis in mathematics entropy etc.
My sincere apologies if this once again disappoints your view of what comments on hacker news should be.
(I have several software patents, but I firmly believe they are a terrible idea).
