I'm not sure why you are resorting to ad-hominem attacks and I'm not sure where you get your facts from as software patents have routinely and generally been kn

I'm not sure why you are resorting to ad-hominem attacks and I'm not sure where you get your facts from as software patents have routinely and generally been knocked out for ineligibility since the Supreme Court's Alice decision years ago. It's clear you have no idea what is involved in getting a patent, it's also clear that you have no idea what a patent gets you. Without litigation, generally nothing. Software companies are well aware of how flimsy most software patents that have passed actually are, and routinely knock them out in IPR proceedings or §101 claims. And your quote is silly as it describes something that should not be patented. In fact, patent law specifically prohibits the patenting of anything "commonly known" or simply a computer-operated process that is something a human otherwise previously did. This is a very difficult area of the law, to prescribe what-yet-unthought-of-things are patentable and which aren't. That's why having a patent doesn't mean that a court will find it valid once you attempt to litigate over it. You seem to not understand this! The patent system isn't perfect, and it doesn't purport itself to be. We struggle to get criminal law right and that involves people's actual lives. So I'm not sure where you get the gall to call other people emotional when it's clearly just a projection of your own situation.