Would you use a fast/cheap prior art service instead of a patent?

One of the hindrances to getting a patent is prior art. Meaning that the thing you're trying yo patent already exists.

After a patent is issued lots of people typically say "but that's obvious". Ok, so let's capture the obvious before someone patents it.

Equally, I might be doing something which is patentable, but I have no interest in patenting it. By registering it somewhere I make it easy for the patent office to search, thus turning down a patent application. Thus preventing me being sued by some new patent holder.

But to answer the question, no I wouldn't use a service like this. Partly because I wouldn't spend the money and partly because (in isolation) the service doesn't work. Unless the patent office is involved and actively using it, bad patents still get granted.

Yes, it might add some weight to a court case where I'm being sued, but honestly if I get there I've already lost. And my code backups show the same thing anyway.

Plus, which of the thousands of things I am doing, should I register? Am I supposed to trawl through my code deciding on each line if it's novel? If I do all this work I might as well just get a patent. That can at least be used in cross-licencing agreements.

Yes, software patents are a blight, but I'm not sure this is really a solution.