All? No, they only get patents for those things that they invent.
It cuts both ways, the bigger you are the more liable the newly empowered patent bureau is to say that you could have easily found the existing patented invention.
On the other hand, since multiple parties can hold patents and subsequently re-licence them it will be easy for a a company, large or small, to protect other parties from patent trolls.
The something obnoxious like the famed "one click" patent would have multiple holders, and any could simply give a universal grant to it.
In the worst case scenario, which I don't think is plausible then the current status quo is maintained for some patents. A large company invents, files it, then publicizes it.
P.S.
I think that business form patents patents like the one-click should be null-in-void in any country.
> All? No, they only get patents for those things that they invent.
As I pointed out, the "extensive publication" requirement is a significant obstacle for everyone else, so they won't get SW patents. Thus, all of the SW patents go to big companies.
> The something obnoxious like the famed "one click" patent
"obnoxious"? That's your objection to one click?
What's wrong with novelty/prior art and non-obvious?
In every other field, recognizing that there is a problem and patenting a broad-swath of mechanisms to solve it is considered good. Why is software different?
And yes, I'm familiar with James Bessen's work. I introduced his EE380 talk at Stanford.
In other words, billion dollar companies get all the SW patents.
HP can "extensively publicize" for almost nothing by piggybacking on other things that they do. Small companies and individuals can't.
IBM, for example, has numerous publications that would qualify. (They send them to every CS department library as well as other subscribers.)
What? You don't keep up with the literature?
I used to look at every tech report that Stanford CS received. That became impossible in the late 80s and things have only gotten worse.