EFF's Defend Innovation Project: Analysis (Part 3)

Patent applicants should be required to provide an example of running software code for each claim in the patent

The Problem:  "Software patents are hard to understand. Really hard, because patent lawyers can get away with writing them in extremely vague and broad language. This means that innovators are left without clear guidance on what patents they might be infringing. It also allows trolls to exploit the vague and confusing patent language to extort higher licensing fees than they would otherwise be entitled."

The Solution:  "Patent applicants should be required to provide an example of running software code for each claim in the patent and tell the Patent Office which claims are covered by which lines of that code. Think, for example, of early Patent Office practice requiring the submission of a “model” of the working invention to the Patent Office."

(source)

  I had an idea once, for a piece of software that would accept input (either vocal, typed, blinked, performed via American Sign language, or thought via cognitive waves).  Depending on which functions the user had enabled in the software (available functions TBD), the software would then perform aforementioned functions, and then present the user with some form of output (either on a computer screen (pixel-based or otherwise), vibrational, Morse-Code light blinking, audible, ink printed, 3D printed, or thought via cognitive waves).

  I probably do not deserve a patent for this idea.  I support this provision as-written, with the possible addition that the scope of the patent should be expressly limited by the functionality of the presented code.

Next: Infringers should avoid liability if they independently arrive at the patented invention