Mark Cuban: If you want to see more jobs created -- change patent laws

I really wish he had been a little clearer on what these patent trolls are and why they're bad. I'm sure most people here on HN understand what's going on, but this article is little more than preaching to the choir without that extra clarification.

As it stands right now, this article has sort of a whining feel to it. "All my companies are getting sued because we're infringing patents, and I'm sick of paying for it! The only way to stop them is to similarly arm yourself with lots of patents so you can sue someone just as hard as they can sue you!"

I'd like to see more detail from him about how most of these patents are obvious and non-innovative, and that the idea of patent troll companies who do nothing with the patents but sue for infringement of them. I think that's what he was getting at with these lines:

> I’m not talking about a new company that had an idea that someone beat us to. No sir. I’m talking about companies that have been doing business the same way for years that are getting hit by patent trolls.

...but that could also be read as "we've been infringing these patents for years, and I'm pissed off that someone noticed." We all know that's not what he meant, but there's a lot to be said for clarity, and clarity wasn't a major component of this article.

All right, so we all agree that software patents are a problem. So what do we do?

A). Abolish software patents. Existing software patents, or parts of patents that govern software, are nullified.

B). ???

Personally, I'm fine with A, but I would like to hear a really good B. Anyone?

Bonus points: Provide a list of ~5 software patents that are "good" software patents. Something were granting the patent led to innovation, or where the technology would not have been developed without the existence of software patents. Actually, I would be happy with just one patent, so I know what it looks like.

"Let's not legalize marijuana. Think of all the DEA agents that would lose their jobs!"

I think a reasonable "B" solution would be to require that any company engaging in patent litigation would have to show that they had actually been using the patent in a product; that their product had a record of sales and use in commerce; and that the allegedly infringing party was directly affecting their business.

Of course, this alternative would have to be specified in much greater detail to be effective, and have safeguards against further gaming of the system.

But it's a reasonable start, particularly as the patent trolls are buying simply to sue, not to produce a useful invention for sale.

While we are patenting every line of every software program ever written, we should also patent colors, smells, tastes, sounds, sensations, thoughts, individual words, photographs, individual syllables, and visual/body language gestures.

How come lines of code fall under the category of 'invention', But English sayings, phrases and quotes do not?