This week, the U.S. Supreme Court threw a bucket of reality on the smoldering wreck of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The overwhelmed office has been blamed for issuing ill-defined, overly broad, and sometimes downright absurd patents that have caused companies such as BlackBerry and Vonage enormous financial problems.

The issue is particularly volatile in the frenetic world of software and internet services. Witness the ongoing battle between eBay Inc. (NASDAQ: EBAY) and MercExchange over the "Buy It Now" technology, which has dragged on since 2000.

Another area of controversy is the patenting of business practices. The market has long suffered the assault of patent trolls that file applications for common practices, then attempt to squeeze cash out of companies who step on "their turf."

The precedent set by this case will raise the bar for patents by requiring the application to more completely demonstrate it is not an obvious, and therefore unpatentable, idea.

I'd like to see the same discipline imposed on the internet, to better deal with cybersquatters. How is it beneficial to us that a few individuals grab addresses that the average Joe would expect belong to thriving businesses, and hold them for ransom? As a business practice, it stinks. As a barrier to growing internet business, the practice is harmful. Can we sic the Supremes on them, too?