It seems like you think that baddox might be trying to make a "point" that is more complicated than what they have written in their posts. baddox>>>All patents

It seems like you think that baddox might be trying to make a "point" that is more complicated than what they have written in their posts. baddox>>>All patents, and in fact all forms of intellectual property protection, by definition apply only to abstract ideas. Looking at his posts, I'm not sure that baddox was "leading anywhere". Baddox may have just been making a simple statement of fact. AnthonyMouse>>>Take any given patent and you can find some degree of abstraction in it. The question is in some sense whether there is anything else there too... Correct! This is what is addressed in the lengthy amicus brief, which is summarized by the fine blog poster. Here is a quote that the blogger felt was representative of the amicus position: >>>Many computer-related patent claims just describe an abstract idea at a high level of generality and say to perform it on a computer or over the Internet. >>>... describe an abstract idea at a high level of generality... I suspect that the key here is the phrase "high level of generality", not "abstract idea". So a more accurate article title could be "Companies ask courts to reject patents that are described at a high level of generality". According to current patent law, patents must be useful - a vague, broad, or general idea is not useful or difficult to create. According to current patent law, patents must be new - which currently means "non obvious to an ordinary person in the inventor's field". Patent law has changed over time as a result of legislative action and Supreme Court action, and will presumably continue to do so. The reason why these companies signed and submitted this amicus brief is to influence the court into taking some action that will benefit them. Private citizens are permitted to submit amici as well. There are some links about copyright below. The summaries are very accessible, but are overly simplistic. The actual text of the legislation is also overly simplistic. The Legislature may pass a law that seems fairly readable, but this is deceptive because the Judiciary and the Executive are the interpreters and enforcers of these laws. When you notice that you vehemently do not agree with an interpretation or enforcement of a law, you must communicate this in some way to the government. Citizens generally communicate by voting, direct communication(such as amicus briefs or visible protests), and civil disobedience(nonviolent but illegal actions). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_35_of_the_United_States_Code#Section_103 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_35_of_the_United_States_C... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause