It's true that the new law needs a chance. And it's true that all or the vast majority of politicians and bureaucrats have good intentions and want things to work. And it's unfortunately a reality that someone who is part of the system (head of the PTO!) has to protect and defend the system.
The problem is that software patents are in fact fundamentally broken. Think about it this way: does it make sense that the patent rules should be the same in fields as different as software/web/internet and pharmaceuticals/biotech -- where the innovation cycle, product lifecycle, and R&D costs are so dramatically different? If we had to design the patent system from scratch, would we put in place the same rules?
The reforms may help a little on the margins. But more fundamental change is needed in the software arena.
My view is perhaps a bit limited because I'm in the software industry. Are other industries represented fairly well by the current laws and is it only the software industry that are demanding changes?
Though government is adept at yielding to special interest and industry groups, fundamental change may be difficult to hope for if the software industry is the lone voice at this point.
It's not even the software industry generally. My background is in embedded software (military radios, heavy-duty network infrastructure), and I never saw that kind of opposition. I got my degree in aerospace engineering, and even among university kids nobody ever questioned the validity of the patent system or the fact that the university took out patents, etc.
I think the difference is that most engineering industries are very capital intensive. Defending the occasional patent lawsuit doesn't seem so onerous when your capital expenditures are measured in the hundreds of millions or billions.
Patent laws generally could certainly be improved.
But by far the biggest problem is software patents. There's no need to make all patents (software, hardware, pharma, etc.) the same because the industries and the cost structures / innovation cycles are very different.
The problem is that software patents are in fact fundamentally broken. Think about it this way: does it make sense that the patent rules should be the same in fields as different as software/web/internet and pharmaceuticals/biotech -- where the innovation cycle, product lifecycle, and R&D costs are so dramatically different? If we had to design the patent system from scratch, would we put in place the same rules?
The reforms may help a little on the margins. But more fundamental change is needed in the software arena.