Really? A gazillion? Evidence?
I have no problem with patents on things that legitimately involve substantial innovation.
See 35 USC 101 below.
However, the few good ones are buried in a huge pile of junk.
Evidence to support this?
Take, for example, one that I saw just how weak it was many, many years ago. There are two basic techniques to implement a blinking cursor, both were patented (the patents have run out by now.) They're both pretty obvious but in general you will encounter them before you have the skill to derive them. However, when I was in school everything was text based. I wrote no graphics on the PC in school, but then my first job involved graphics. I ended up coming up against the blinking cursor problem and solving it with a few hours of work. We didn't have Google back then, it was entirely my own work. Nothing that an entry-level person can solve in a few hours work warrants a patent!
Your evidence is an anecdote about one or two patent(s) issued in the 60s, IIRC, that have expired? That's some strong stuff there, Loren!
BTW, read 35 USC 101. It defines what "warrants a patent":
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."
It doesn't exclude things that "an entry-level person can solve in a few hours". In fact, if an entry-level person can come up with a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, in a few hours, they could and should seek to patent it. More power to 'em.
BTW, "obviousness" (one of the "conditions and requirements") is covered in 35 USC 103 - and a rejection on obviousness under 35 USC 103 rightly requires substantially more than just an observation of "Doh! Even
I coulda thought of that!" You know, such as
evidence and
reasoned argument that supports the rejection under 103.
