> ... the article really fails to explain why lawyers don't want to have a categorical exclusion for software patents. Usually, you want a legs principle to get

> ... the article really fails to explain why lawyers don't want to have a categorical exclusion for software patents. Usually, you want a legs principle to get to the root of why something is bad, not address bad situations ad hoc. As a class, lawyers love systems in which bad situations are addressed ad hoc. All of their major incentives are aligned that way: + They get to tell their clients what the clients want to hear: "The law doesn't look good for what you want to do, but we've come up with what we think is a powerful argument that your particular situation should be treated differently." That's good for getting hired, and for staying hired by being perceived as a "team player." + They can earn the admiration of their peers for successfully persuading a court that the client's situation should indeed be treated differently than the law would otherwise require. That enhances reputation, which helps generate future business. + And of course let's not forget the direct economic incentives associated with ad hoc proceedings: Lawyers get to bill for factual investigation; legal research; opinion-writing; seeking discovery from the other side; responding to the other side's discovery requests; filing or responding to pre-trial motions; trial prep; the actual trial; and the inevitable appellate proceedings.