Username or EmailPassword
I think some of your ideas are actually good, as in I agree with them - but many of them would never have any chance of being adopted (in the states anyway) along with your 2nd idea - abolishment of software patents.
There are many vocal people in the US pushing for patent reform , but most of them are being deceitful. It is not because they want the system fixed - it is because they want to avoid any possible outcome that might result in the elimination of software/method/design patents. There are too many people with a vested interest in these kinds of patents around - they are desperate to keep this particular reform off the table. They talk about trying everything but that.
The real solution, that solves about 95% of the problem, is simple: just abolish these three types of patents (really two, as software patents ARE method patents). They never should have been allowed in the first place and both are arguably in direct contradiction of the stated goals of the system.
As you said, software is adequately protected by copyright, the the notion of design patents (when fairly applied) could be covered under trademark law with a bit of massaging. The dirty truth is that most people for "patent reform" in the US are against this solution...
We need to stop beating around the bush - many of those other ideas you had would be great and all, but the only one that really matters is abolishment of types of patents that don't make any damn sense. Without abolishing the "bad" patent types, nothing will really get solved...
General utility patents, pharma patents, etc. might have problems - but they are no where near as serious. Edited 2012-07-06 01:12 UTC