I have a question ... if many of these patents are that obvious, why doesn't Google or another company make a point (that will take 3-4 years to make) by patenting a lot of stuff it thinks will exist in 3-4 years, and then just suing everyone in sight on the internet just to prove a point? As long as their patent covers it, they will make lots of high profile cases.
Maybe the stuff isn't as obvious when it's being patented. I don't think the obviousness-at-the-time-of-patent is the problem here. The problem is that the industry moves quickly and it doesn't cost much to innovate in software as it does in, say, pharma. That's what Posner's point was.
>I have a question ... if many of these patents are that obvious, why doesn't Google or another company make a point (that will take 3-4 years to make) by patenting a lot of stuff it thinks will exist in 3-4 years, and then just suing everyone in sight on the internet just to prove a point?
They all already do the first part (filing for tons of lame patents). The second part doesn't work between large organizations because of MAD -- you have patents, they have patents, if you sue them then they sue you back and there is no predicting the ultimate outcome other than that everyone will be writing enormous checks to an army of lawyers. Why start a nuclear war, even if you think you can win? (Apple has been learning this the hard way.)
Why spend millions of dollars sending a point (and in the process end up looking to your customers like a huge jackass who prefers to compete in the courtroom instead of the market) when you can spend a fraction of that amount lobbying and filing amicus briefs and probably get the same result?
Maybe the stuff isn't as obvious when it's being patented. I don't think the obviousness-at-the-time-of-patent is the problem here. The problem is that the industry moves quickly and it doesn't cost much to innovate in software as it does in, say, pharma. That's what Posner's point was.