Patents, at least the way they have affected modern telecommunications and business, have been very controversial.

Patent advocates look to Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and its adoption of the concept of patents to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

Critics generally recognize the importance, in theory, of the value of patents but assert that the current patent system tends to stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts.

Starting last year, the U.S. Supreme Court started an apparently careful effort to rebalance the current system to bring it back to its original purpose. The focus initially was on rebalancing the playing field between patent owners and users.

The question before the court more recently, with a decision being announced in late April, concerned the balance between those who wanted to get patent protection for their "inventions" and those who contend that many of these "inventions" were just obvious combinations of known technologies. The latest decision brought the definition of "obvious" more in line with common sense.

There was a decision in another patent-related case between Microsoft and AT&T that also was published in April, but it hinged on a technicality that Congress could easily change, so is not very important. There was a hint in one of the opinions that might become important to the patentability of software, and that would be big indeed, but it was only a hint.

The obviousness decision came in the case of KSR International vs. Teleflex, and dealt with the patentability of a type of pedal used in cars. The decision is a very important one, but exactly how important will be determined by the special Federal Circuit Court that deals with patents. This is the same court that this decision, as well as the one a year ago, slaps upside the head to wake it up to the reason we have patents.

In my mind, patents, when awarded to real inventors, are an important driver of innovation. Many of the millions of U.S. patents represent real innovation and were developments that made a real difference, at least at the time. (Take a look at patents 5,183, 88,929, 224,329 and 2,292,387 for some examples -- Google patents is a good way to search.) But far too many patents have been awarded that seem undeserved to anyone in the field, or, indeed, to anyone with common sense. (See U.S. patent 5,443,036 for an example.)