I don't think his piece was intended to be a rebuttal to serious informed analysts so much as an attempt to discredit the naive abolitionists who frequently kno

I don't think his piece was intended to be a rebuttal to serious informed analysts so much as an attempt to discredit the naive abolitionists who frequently know little or nothing about patent law and who fix on edge cases and abuse as if they are the norm and declare 'off with his head.' If you are irritated by such standard arguments, which I respect, bear in mind that there are those of us who are frustrated by endless statements about how 'obvious' software patents are and how the edge cases demonstrate the whole system is broken and hence must be abandoned which is as coherent a position as proposing to do away with criminal law because of high profile miscarriages of justice. The law is an ass. Duh.