UPSTO nor EPO and else shouldn't handle prior-arts, these ones should be handle by a separated entity. Hence, when the litigations come one can compare. The fact that a prior-arts compulsory exist for itself would cool any attempt to benefit unlegitimately from some patents.

The patent practice has failed, so its counter-part is needed.

"... defended by the patent applicants who say that if third party prior art was admitted they would harass our applications and they would never get issued."

So let be get this clear, applicants don't want third parties to be able to point out prior art because it would stop their patents being awarded ? Isn't that an admission that they are applying for, and getting approved, patents for things that are plainly not patentable ?

So there we have it, admission that US patents are worthless because the system is fundamentally broken - and people wonder why it gets criticised !

I just don't get it. No-one thinks the current system works. Big companies, little companies, especially the free software community all hate it. It must be costing the economy billions. Why are they being so ineffectual? The rule is less than useless unless it's compulsory.

...if you're a huge company paying off the government.