> I think software engineers should absolutely be involved, but more like "expert witnesses". The judgement is better left in the hands of law people with common sense.
I can't disagree more.
Should common sense be how we decide what medical option to pursue? Or whether a mathematical proof is valid? Or even whether a legal argument is allowed - in the US judges determine that in many case, not juries?
What possible reason is there for common sense to determine whether a software patent is trivial or not? The only question should be whether it actually is trivial or not. The people who know that are software engineers.
Because there is no truth in "trivial" and "obvious", there is only value, as in "guilty" and "good".
There is also no objective truth in medicine. But we still let doctors decide what procedures to do, not random people with 'common sense'.
There is no true "healthy", but there is a truth about the state of your bodily function, we just do not know it whole most of times, even doctors. Physically alive and not alive is very objective.
We let doctors do whatever they suggest a lot, we also have the right to refuse medical help if deemed mentally capable. Random people with common sense decide for theirselves.
And really the merits of various patents these companies holds are not the focus of my argument, I understand you feel quite differently.