Right, but in the above few posts we're talking about how heightened pleading standards can get you into trouble.

And as a general point, special cases for special areas of law are hacks. The problem with patents isn't the pleading standards. It's not the lack of loser pays. It's that patents are very amorphous, poorly defined property rights. Imagine how much litigation there would be if your property right in your yard couldn't be simply and unambiguously determined just by looking or simple surveying. That's basically the problem with patents.

> Imagine how much litigation there would be if your property right in your yard couldn't be simply and unambiguously determined just by looking or simple surveying. That's basically the problem with patents.

True, that's basically the problem with patents.

I'm surprised that there isn't a concerted effort to more clearly define what constitutes a valid patent from a semantic point of view. What meaning in that definition on paper is monopolized for a limited period. If we use a semantic hierarchy to define patents then looking up patent prior art becomes a mechanical process where we compare a hierarchy of prior art to the patent application.

How is a patent definition considered acceptable when it doesn't try to show that it is novel. Patents are after all a monopoly for a limited time before claims become public domain. So what constitutes public domain should be recorded to facilitate prior art look-up.

Some basic things like these two points can go a long way in resolving conflict.