Courts taking a look at the "obviousness" of patents

About fucking time. Some of the patents are so ridiculously stupid that it's a wonder that people even think of patenting them. This tuesday the supreme court is going to re-examine the way they determine if pattents are obvious. The main issue are patents that cover the combination of existing technologies in a new way. The current policy is that to deny such a pattent there needs to be explicit documentation that demonstrates teaching, motivation, or suggestion of the idea that precedes the patent application. Some argue that this is too braud. Basicaly the partys are divided into two camps. The first says that this braud definition hurts innovation, specificaly in the fast moving technology industry, where people don't often document their motivation or intention to combine existing technology. The other camp says that if the rulling is overturned that it will have a serious domino effect on a large amount of existing pattents. This sounds like pretty poor fucking argument. "Don't change the policy because it will mean fixing a lot of mistakes, and that's going to be hard, tedious work, and it's going to invalidate our bullshit patents." Seriously, this is your argument? I hope the supreme court doesn't pay any heed to something that stupid. But who knows.