The USPTO is overwhelmed and understaffed, so I can understand why they have poor QC on patents, particularly when they require technical knowledge to determine triviality.
What I don't get though is why it seems to be such a challenge to prove the invalidity of these crap patents in court. The google loss to bedrock (the linux kernel troll) is a high profile example of this. Maybe the standards that need to be looked at are around litigation and if enough crap is thrown out, all the incentive is gone and all of the sudden the USPTO application volume goes way down.
What I frequently wonder is why an overwhelmed and understaffed organization can approve so many patents. If I were in their position, my default would be to deny almost everything. Are they being told that approving patents is in the best interest of America? Is this a case of patriotism-gone-bad?
That's because of the way patent law is worded. I don't remember the exact wording (and i'm to lazy to look it up) but it's close to "a patent shall be granted except..."
Basically, they have to grant the patent if they can't come up with a good reason not to.
Perhaps changing the law to be worded "a patent shall not be granted except". Then require the applicants to show how their patent fits the requirements.
What I don't get though is why it seems to be such a challenge to prove the invalidity of these crap patents in court. The google loss to bedrock (the linux kernel troll) is a high profile example of this. Maybe the standards that need to be looked at are around litigation and if enough crap is thrown out, all the incentive is gone and all of the sudden the USPTO application volume goes way down.