There was a U.S. Supreme Court case called Diamond v Diehr such that if its precedent were followed, software patents like the one in the comment above would never be granted. Somehow lower courts confused things enough that software patents started being granted again.
Once you open up patents to a super broad and prolific field like software, it's impossible to maintain enough expertise to assess novelty and non-obviousness. And at that point the system completely breaks down. A presumption of validity when the USPTO cannot reasonably be expected to judge validity basically means that people are being denied due process when sued for patent infringement.
There was a U.S. Supreme Court case called Diamond v Diehr such that if its precedent were followed, software patents like the one in the comment above would never be granted. Somehow lower courts confused things enough that software patents started being granted again.
Once you open up patents to a super broad and prolific field like software, it's impossible to maintain enough expertise to assess novelty and non-obviousness. And at that point the system completely breaks down. A presumption of validity when the USPTO cannot reasonably be expected to judge validity basically means that people are being denied due process when sued for patent infringement.