If obvious patents are granted, society will be giving it's protection at a net loss. For society there is a cost incurred in enforcing protection as well as an opportunity cost in forbidding competition (assuming you believe competition creates better products). This trade-off could be worth it, but only if if the invention would not have emerged, or would have taken a long time to emerge, without protection.
-Should Microsoft (or any other patent holder) go to court and argue on the basis that society is not being well served?
Absolutely not. They should never have to argue for anyone but themselves in court. Microsoft is just playing the patent game by the rules that exist today. My problem is with a system that is neglecting its purpose. The problem seems to be rooted in patent rules that are massively out of touch with the current state (and pace) of technology.
-Any article that simply refers to a patent abstract as proof of the triviality of a patent is itself trolling. Patent abstracts offer a very broad description; it is the detailed body of the patent that distinguishes it.
You're absolutely right in saying that it's not fair to criticize a patent simply by its abstract. The problem is that often the detailed description in the body of the patent is far too broad. Many patents have less to do with a specific invention and more to do with gaining blanket coverage of a large swath of IP. This is the game that large companies and their patent lawyers are playing. I would argue that a system where "he who has the most lawyers wins" is very counterproductive to invention and innovation.
If obvious patents are granted, society will be giving it's protection at a net loss. For society there is a cost incurred in enforcing protection as well as an opportunity cost in forbidding competition (assuming you believe competition creates better products). This trade-off could be worth it, but only if if the invention would not have emerged, or would have taken a long time to emerge, without protection.
-Should Microsoft (or any other patent holder) go to court and argue on the basis that society is not being well served?
Absolutely not. They should never have to argue for anyone but themselves in court. Microsoft is just playing the patent game by the rules that exist today. My problem is with a system that is neglecting its purpose. The problem seems to be rooted in patent rules that are massively out of touch with the current state (and pace) of technology.
-Any article that simply refers to a patent abstract as proof of the triviality of a patent is itself trolling. Patent abstracts offer a very broad description; it is the detailed body of the patent that distinguishes it.
You're absolutely right in saying that it's not fair to criticize a patent simply by its abstract. The problem is that often the detailed description in the body of the patent is far too broad. Many patents have less to do with a specific invention and more to do with gaining blanket coverage of a large swath of IP. This is the game that large companies and their patent lawyers are playing. I would argue that a system where "he who has the most lawyers wins" is very counterproductive to invention and innovation.