> I did. People unskilled in patent law should be able to replicate the invention.
And, as I said, that's what the current requirement is.
> The case law would clarify what this meant in practice.
But it hasn't.
I'm not disagreeing with that evaluation of the status quo. I'm pointing out that the proposed "solution" is how we got there. Given that, it's unlikely to be the way out.
Note that "should be able to replicate" is a description of a desired outcome. As current experience demonstrates, it doesn't produce said outcome. (It's like the difference between requirements and implementation.)
> I couldn't believe how the patent lawyers turned a my simple ideas into something so hard to understand.
Did you ask them why they did what they did in your name?
And, as I said, that's what the current requirement is.
> The case law would clarify what this meant in practice.
But it hasn't.
I'm not disagreeing with that evaluation of the status quo. I'm pointing out that the proposed "solution" is how we got there. Given that, it's unlikely to be the way out.
Note that "should be able to replicate" is a description of a desired outcome. As current experience demonstrates, it doesn't produce said outcome. (It's like the difference between requirements and implementation.)
> I couldn't believe how the patent lawyers turned a my simple ideas into something so hard to understand.
Did you ask them why they did what they did in your name?