>I think the definition, for a lot of people, is like the famous definition of pornography - I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it. This is a prime area for courts to provide some judgment, but only if they had a clear set of criteria (not necessarily a bright line, but a set of criteria as to what makes a software patent sufficiently "inventive") on which to judge software patents, which they definitely don't have today.

There's a lot more patent litigation than obscenity litigation, so I don't think that's a workable stadnard. Also with much more money at stake. And given the responses here... strong feelings as well. So I don't think that really works given the complaints here.

> This is a prime area for courts to provide some judgment, but only if they had a clear set of criteria (not necessarily a bright line, but a set of criteria as to what makes a software patent sufficiently "inventive") on which to judge software patents, which they definitely don't have today.

That's not true. Patents today have to be just as inventive as they were before.

To show how you are proving my point... I asked... "hey software engineers, help us attorneys out and tell us where the line should be" your response was "well, there is no clear line and I can't help you find one but judges should really provide one..."

I just want to reiterate that if technologists cannot delineate a clear line between the good and bad software patents... please literally explain how a judge will be able to...