IMO they shouldn't. Personally I'd like for patenting a new physical invention to require a physical object to accompany it that embodies what is being patented.

But that's never been the case, why should it be now? If you forced every inventor to have to make their invention, it'd be a pro-industry burden that diminished the capacities of any smaller organizations or inventors.

> But that's never been the case, why should it be now?

For the same reasons TFA is making the argument "No Source Code == No Patent."

> If you forced every inventor to have to make their invention, it'd be a pro-industry burden that diminished the capacities of any smaller organizations or inventors.

If an inventor never made their invention, are they an inventor? IMO no, they're just an "idea guy" at that point.

You don't even have to be an "idea guy", many patents are patenting the problem domain.

In 1790, when patents were first brought into law in the United States, it was a requirement that the Patent Office be provided with a working copy of the invention for their archives.

In fact, in some cases, you DO have to provide a working copy; admittedly now that's when your patent seems impossible (like perpetual motion). Also, for plant patents (that's something only there so they can put it on the Patent Bar exam /s), I believe you have to provide a plant.

"make their invention" is the law; it's the RP in ARP and CRP. You can't claim a new antibiotic without giving the formula. 112 rejections are common in patent prosecution.