> 1. they are judged pretty much solely on the number of patents examined and their responsiveness
AFAIK, it's more about responsiveness rather than number of patents. Examiners are judged on how many responses ("Office Actions") they file, whether allowing or rejecting a patent. Since a patent can keep coming back for examination after every rejection, they typically generate more responses than patents.
> 2. patent offices are funded through maintenance fees...
They get paid an examination fee every time 1) someone files a patent application and 2) someone requests for further prosecution after they get a "final" rejection.
You could also argue that this creates a perverse incentive to keep rejecting patents, especially as issuing rejections can also be easy for an examiner. They are supposed to attack every element of the claim and prove it is covered by specific sections of prior art, but I've seen responses where they literally dismiss entire claims with some vague prior art references. And there is really nothing an applicant can do about such behavior other than suck it up and pay for continued examination.
> the existing patent system simply isn't a good fit for software...
I'd say that's not true anymore. There was period where patent offices suddenly had to start accepting software-based patents and didn't know how to deal with them, resulting in poor quality patents. Things are lot tighter now.
Also, I wouldn't conflate "business method" patents with "software" patents. In fact, there is no such thing as "software" patents. There are only patents on solutions to problems that happen to be best solved with software. Business methods are just one such area of problems (which I'd agree are not amenable to patenting).
AFAIK, it's more about responsiveness rather than number of patents. Examiners are judged on how many responses ("Office Actions") they file, whether allowing or rejecting a patent. Since a patent can keep coming back for examination after every rejection, they typically generate more responses than patents.
> 2. patent offices are funded through maintenance fees...
Actually, while maintenance fees are the largest portion of revenues, they are also funded by examination and issuance fees: http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ar/USPTOFY2014PAR.pdf
They get paid an examination fee every time 1) someone files a patent application and 2) someone requests for further prosecution after they get a "final" rejection.
You could also argue that this creates a perverse incentive to keep rejecting patents, especially as issuing rejections can also be easy for an examiner. They are supposed to attack every element of the claim and prove it is covered by specific sections of prior art, but I've seen responses where they literally dismiss entire claims with some vague prior art references. And there is really nothing an applicant can do about such behavior other than suck it up and pay for continued examination.
> the existing patent system simply isn't a good fit for software...
I'd say that's not true anymore. There was period where patent offices suddenly had to start accepting software-based patents and didn't know how to deal with them, resulting in poor quality patents. Things are lot tighter now.
Also, I wouldn't conflate "business method" patents with "software" patents. In fact, there is no such thing as "software" patents. There are only patents on solutions to problems that happen to be best solved with software. Business methods are just one such area of problems (which I'd agree are not amenable to patenting).