> unintended consequence of well-intentioned legislation
I'd question both of your adjectives there. This seems like an intended consequence of heavily lobbied legislation, as evidenced by the reactions to any attempts to change this system.
I think parent was referring to the inception of the patent system, which was well-intentioned. This is different from the trolls lobbying to keep the status quo, which is definitely not well-intentioned.
I still disagree. Since inception patent law is heavily lobbied (except that in some cases lobby didn't have a name yet), and legislators refuse to fix its very visible flaws.
The basic structure of the current law dates to 1952, and indeed even that update wasn't a big change from the 1836 Act. Maybe the 1995 amendment regarding biotechnology inventions is a lobbying-influenced giveaway, but most of the changes have narrowed the patent law, not expanded it.
I'd question both of your adjectives there. This seems like an intended consequence of heavily lobbied legislation, as evidenced by the reactions to any attempts to change this system.