Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to think that explaining the system is the same as justifying it. For example, saying "it costs $500K" constitutes minimizing that sum or calling it ordinary and reasonable. Neither is true. I don't need to pile on the condemnations in every sentence. As for what "something" is: I happen to be retired while you probably will be living with the patent system for a few years yet. So don't just say "someone sho…
Well you did say: > The defendant's standard tactic is usually to file for IPR, or PTAB reexamination of the patent, which is like a trial without a courtroom. For it to be the standard tactic, that implies a worldview in which defendants have that tactic as an option, and that's where the impression you think most defendants have access to that level of assets comes from. But once you've explained the fees, it becom…
This is Hacker News, not Patent Law 101. I'm not obligated to explain every aspect of the system in a comment.
I gather you think there's something new or unique in your comments about poor defendants. There is not. People have been saying it since the 90s. You are preaching to the already-converted.
Finally, if you read my paper on SSRN (which I've cited here many times), you'd see that "programmers' standard toolbox of techniques" is what I called out as something missing from the law.
That paper got cited in the Checkpoint amicus brief to SCOTUS in the CLS Bank case. That's an example of doing "something" but I will admit it's not much.
If you really wanted to do more, you'd start or join a political movement to "abolish software patents." There already are such organizations.