> "drug that alleviates [condition]" doesn't sound like it can be invented, since drugs are commonly used to treat conditions, so there's no new invention here
It's been attempted. They invent and patent X as a "method to do Y", and then try to sue others who do Y via some means other than X.
My point was that the original description of patents was not precise enough and implied that you could patent Y rather than X.
I have never heard of people using method patents to sue over methods other than things similar to methods in the claims. Usually, the claims are as general as you can get away with, and cover a lot more than just the actual "X" that they are introducing to the market. When someone does something similar to "X" without reading the patent, they can easily be walking in one of the claim sets that has been patented in the "method to do Y" patent. Most people who want to copy something do it in a fairly unoriginal way.
Still, patent claims are never as broad as "drug to alleviate headaches" or anything similar.
It's been attempted. They invent and patent X as a "method to do Y", and then try to sue others who do Y via some means other than X.
My point was that the original description of patents was not precise enough and implied that you could patent Y rather than X.