Patent case before Supreme Court could have major implications for software

The patent system is for the rich. You can't do it without a proxy lawyer acting in your place.

Worse, you don't need a working model or proof of anything. You just need an idea that is a string of words on paper.

Then those who invent nothing sit back and wait until someone actually does do the inventing to have a working model then sue them blind.

Without working models to prove anything and only patenting an idea, this prevents the progress of technology because those who can't build get patents and those who do build get sued.

Patenting an idea only means it will never be built or used.

That is mass manipulation because the patent holder refuses to build it either.

When the patent system becomes nothing but a lock everybody else out weapon it is not a patent office, it is a method of cornering the market while doing absolutely nothing.

It should change to a build it and use it or lose it scenario because as is, the patent office serves little to no purpose but to totally quash inventing and that is antithetical to having a patent.

Power wrote:

The patent system is for the rich. You can't do it without a proxy lawyer acting in your place.
Worse, you don't need a working model or proof of anything. You just need an idea that is a string of words on paper.
Then those who invent nothing sit back and wait until someone actually does do the inventing to have a working model then sue them blind.
Without working models to prove anything and only patenting an idea, this prevents the progress of technology because those who can't build get patents and those who do build get sued.
Patenting an idea only means it will never be built or used.
That is mass manipulation because the patent holder refuses to build it either.
When the patent system becomes nothing but a lock everybody else out weapon it is not a patent office, it is a method of cornering the market while doing absolutely nothing.
It should change to a build it and use it or lose it scenario because as is, the patent office serves little to no purpose but to totally quash inventing and that is antithetical to having a patent.

You have a mistaken impression of what is required for a patent. The USPTO does not allow ideas/concepts to be patented. It requires you to reduce the invention to practice (also referred to as teaching). That means, it has to be described in enough detail, that somebody skilled in the same art could reproduce the invention.

Additionally, the supreme court's KSR ruling in 2007 also raises the standard for 'quality of the description' for a patent to be upheld by the court if challenged.