The real problem is that you should only be able to patent a solution to a difficult problem, while these "broad" patents often look more like you are patenting the problem itself, so that any solution is covered. This is totally against the original idea of patents (either software or hardware).
> The real problem is that you should only be able to patent a solution
Not just any solution, a non-obvious solution. If presented with a new problem, as tech often is, you can think up a solution in a day, it shouldn't' be patent-able because others are going to come up with that same solution. The one click check out is an example of this.
I've heard it argued that simply thinking of a new problem should be sufficient for patent protection, though I strongly disagree with that position. Put differently, identifying the problem can be significantly more difficult than creating the solution, but I still think patents should cover non-obvious solutions to any problem, rather than any solution to non-obvious problems.
Absolutely, only a non-obvious solution to a problem should be patentable.
But if they at least only granted patents to specific almost-obvious solutions, and not just to any solution (which is the same as patenting the problem), it would be a little better: You could at least try to find a different solution...
