The quotes in the article explain exactly why software patents are absolutely horrible for innovation. Really? I thought the opposite-- they certainly make th

The quotes in the article explain exactly why software patents are absolutely horrible for innovation. Really? I thought the opposite-- they certainly make the case against overly broad patents, but then say "If an inventor has a really original and outstanding idea, then a patent might be merited." It's these "really original and outstanding" ideas that the patent system is designed for, and why "non-obviousness" is supposed to be a requirement for a successful patent application. Thake a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousn...