[i_k_k]

One goal is to encourage inventors to publish their work, rather than hold them as trade secrets, so that others can learn from them -- and get eventually copy and extend them.

I've read a fair number of patents, both in and outside of software, and my biggest problem with software patents is that most of them are absolute crap: they are generally neither innovative nor insightful.

[yvdriess]

Anecdotally, in my field, the actual interesting ideas are kept a company secret. The ideas that are not being deployed for competitive advantage are shoveled into salami-sliced patents to be deployed as ammunition in the big-corpo patent warfare battlefield. But here I am talking about a field where implementation trumps ideas. In some fields, e.g. pharma, most of the work and expense lies in finding a needle in a haystack. Once the product hits the market, the secret is out.

In both cases, I feel that the patent system fails its goal to make trade secrets public.

[kelseyfrog]

Serious question: is it a testable hypothesis?

If it's not possible to verify that the system is fulfilling its purpose, and if the general consensus is that it doesn't fulfill its purpose, then what do we get out of saying that "encouraging inventors to publish their work" is it's purpose? It feels like it's mass self-delusion at that point, and for who?

[i_k_k]

I don't know how to test this in an experimental way because I don't know how to make it repeatable.

I can say anecdotally that I've used non-software patents to figure out how to level a door via its hinges, find out how Pop Rocks are made, and understand how they keep air sickness bags from leaking. Nothing earth shattering, but interesting. It is worth noting that I could easily follow all of these even though I'm a complete non-expert on any of the subjects.

I've never gotten anything out of a software patent. I have a hard time even reading mine. This leads me to the hypothesis (which seems testable) that software patents are particularly broken.