This cannot be said of patent 5,533,051 on compression of random data, a beautiful discussion of which can be found on:

http://gailly.net/05533051.html

This claims to be able to compress ANY data string by at least one bit without loss of information. This means that recursive application to any file could reduce it to 0 bits without loss. Now certain (particularly repetitive) songs might be compressible to this extent without any loss whatsoever (the complete works of Paris Hilton somehow spring to mind), but I suspect most medics would be less than impressed if anyone did this to their digital X-ray images.

The USPTO has a lot to answer for. At least they are trying to address the problem.

Any review of the US patent system has surely got to start by ensuring that bogus non-inventions (of which one-click is probably the best example) can't qualify.

>"it wants to shift much of the prior art research burden

> to the applicant"

Oh, sure, the applicant is defnitely the person with the most interest in ferreting out prior art and making it known....

The problem with the current system is too many conflicting interests (they only get new offices when they accept patents, not when they reject them) and this just introduces more.

> "malicious compliance"

If the system is being worked, why do they think that requiring even more paper from the applicant will make a difference?

Why don't they:

a) Start writing patents in plain English

b) Hire a couple of actual coders to laugh at the software patent applications.

...as demonstrated by Amazon's latest nonsensical attempt to patent all business done on the Internet.

That is, abuse won't stop until there are stiff fines and civil punishments for filing a frivolous patent claim. Something along the lines of "$500,000 fine and no patent applications will be accepted from the offender for 17 years."

I'm very disappointed with the patent system myself.

Here is a document that Phil Salin wrote years ago, and is still completely valid. Unfortunately, the guy is no longer alive, and I don't know anyone else that speaks so clearly about the patent topic.

Take some time, read it thoroughly, it really could be one of the most important things people will learn about patents. The patent office should really pay very close attention as well.

http://www.philsalin.com/patents.html