I'm not sure that would work. Two major problems with this approach: Assumption: As it vastly increases uncertainty. If filing a patent undergoes no tests and is made that easy, there will be millions of them.
This would mean that any software endeavour is going to run afoul of boatloads of patents, most of which are (to you) clearly identifiable as non-novel crap, but you can't be sure a judge will agree with you on that issue. Thus, way more risk to you. This also means that the practical matter of novelty for patents will be decided, even more than today, by lawyers. Lawyers don't innovate software themselves, and whenever lawyers are involved so far, it costs everyone literally tons of money. I don't see why these changes you propose are going to have a downward effect on that. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
