The mere cost of prosecuting a patent application keeps frivilous applicants at bay under the examination system, and having a formal, independent, and official process of pre-determining an invention's novelty and usefulness does give a patent greater "value" by its presumption of validity even if it only gives the inventor a right to sue.
The bitter patent fights between Glenn Curtiss and the Wright brothers about airplanes are legendary and were socially useful to the U.S. and its patent system, but I seem to recall that a federal District Judge overturned the Needie string trimmer patent on grounds that the invention was "obvious" since any gardener would think to wrap a wire or string around an electric motor mounted to a handle in order to make a trimmer.
True or not, that story really rankled me, and that's when I got the notion that maybe a registration system was, perhaps, better. You've persuaded me otherwise, and I thank you effusively!
. . . I seem to recall that a federal District Judge overturned the Needie string trimmer patent on grounds that the invention was "obvious" since any gardener would think to wrap a wire or string around an electric motor mounted to a handle in order to make a trimmer.
True or not, that story really rankled me, and that's when I got the notion that maybe a registration system was, perhaps, better.
The hurdle for "usefulness" is very low. Stupid and boring games can be patented. As long is there is a detectable (and legal) use, the usefulness hurdle is met. The substantive issues typically raised by an Examiner are "anticipation" and "obviousness." "Anticipation" exists when the the invention disclosed in your application is taught by a single writing elsewhere. That single writing could be another patent, a catalog, or any other document that one might find in a library.
"Obviousness" is different, and is rather hard to nail down. I don't know the string trimmer case, and would need to read the decision before forming an opinion on its value to the patent system, and to society as a whole. The test of obviousness is not whether ALL gardeners would think to use a swinging string to trim the lawn; it is whether such a device is obvious (without hindsight) to people skilled in the art. I would also say that a "gardener" is not the only hypothetical person "skilled in the art" of designing motorized garden implements. You see, what is obvious to an organic chemist is not understood by most people; so the test of "obviousness" has to consider the skills of the minds that compete with THIS inventor.
There have been patent registration systems, BTW, and there are some wide ranges of patent practice in existence today. I don't know how those systems operate in total, but my guess is that the scope of rights granted, and the enforcement mechanism that supports a "registration" system are radically different from the scope and enforcement under a patent examination system. For example, perhaps the "presumption of validity" is gone, perhaps the patentee does not have rights against all comers, etc. Generally, in a registration system, the patent is easier to overturn in court -- so the string trimmer guy would have been LESS likely to prevail if the patent he had was obtained without examination.
Imagine the cost to society if patents obtained without examination could be asserted as presumptively valid, and against all comers. My evil neighbor would take out patents on the things that I profit from, and would sue me to make me stop. Adding insult to injury, it would be MY burden to prove why the evil neighbor isn't entitled to enforcement of that patent against me. Yikes!
Anyway, it is nice to meet you. If there are any overarching lessons in my rambling, one it is that the systems we bemoan are complex, and another is that we should endeavor to understand a system thoroughly before we advocate changing an isolated part of it.