In my opinion, patents should exist to protect a specific way of doing something. That is, if you developed the mousetrap, then the patent would be for a bar attached to a spring kept under tension by a hairtrigger designed to activate when a mouse stepped on it. It wouldn't be for a device used to kill mice.

Of course, my example also shouldn't be allowed because the design is trivial. In this case because it's existed and everyone's known about it so long. In other cases because it's the obvious way to do something. That is, even if no one ever came up with the idea of a closed door before, no one should be allowed a patent on covering it with a flat piece of wood.

The reasons patents exist is because it used to be trivial to take someone's mousetrap apart and see how it worked, thus becoming your blueprint for copying them. The patent says ``Here's how we did it, and you can't do the same thing.'' The reason they exist is so that entrepreneurs and inventors can't have their product undercut by someone with deeper pockets.

The idea of patenting an idea is obviously ridiculous and the patent office needs its rules hardened. I think a great way to do it is to open it up to peer review. The government obviously can't or won't spend the money to get competent people to review patent applications, so put the people who are experts on the line. Make one of the fees of people who receive patents to become a member of a jury on some number of incoming patents that fit in their fields. This might be a lot of work, but it can't be more than the patent offices currently deal with.

And make patents revokable when it's shown that their content is trivial. Again, peer review.

Ahh, I'm getting all worked up.

I also think that anyone who applies for a software patent should have to include the source code of the thing they're trying to patent in the application. If no one else can then use that code, then it doesn't make any difference that it's publically available.