From what I understand of the patent office, the problem with their methodology is the test for obviousness: has this already been patented? No? Then it's non-obvious.
Which of course ignores the possibility that a typical engineer working in this area would assume that the idea is obvious and therefore ineligible for patent. So the ethical engineer doesn't apply, but giganticorp's legal staff pesters their engineering team to patent every possible idea, obvious or not. Which they dutifully do.
Of course, how would the patent office know that the idea is non-obvious to an engineer trained in the state of the art, unless they employ engineers who are trained in the state of the art in every engineering discipline?
There aren't all that many engineering disciplines, and hiring a hundred well-qualified people to review patents might actually save the government a lot of money that currently goes toward running the legal system (they could hire fewer federal judges).
Being a part-time patent examiner might be a great job for a retired engineer who remembers all the "new ideas" from the last several decades.
> Of course, how would the patent office know that the idea is non-obvious to an engineer trained in the state of the art, unless they employ engineers who are trained in the state of the art in every engineering discipline?
By using a roster of consultants, presumably.
(I agree with the rest of your points, by the way.)
Which of course ignores the possibility that a typical engineer working in this area would assume that the idea is obvious and therefore ineligible for patent. So the ethical engineer doesn't apply, but giganticorp's legal staff pesters their engineering team to patent every possible idea, obvious or not. Which they dutifully do.
Of course, how would the patent office know that the idea is non-obvious to an engineer trained in the state of the art, unless they employ engineers who are trained in the state of the art in every engineering discipline?