> As for this patentpandas guy: there is lots of prior art... This guy is a naif.
You're a lawyer, whose job is reading shit, and you thought the protagonist was a man?
This is just stylistically razzing you. I am not this cynical and you are a qualified expert. The takeaway is that the status quo for patenting in software, and staff attorneys generally, is really unpopular, among highly educated people. There has to be major change.
> the status quo for patenting in software, and staff attorneys generally, is really unpopular, among highly educated people.
"highly educated" doesn't mean what you'd like it to. But yes, there should be major changes, starting with making software ineligible for the one-size-fits-all patent system.
You're a lawyer, whose job is reading shit, and you thought the protagonist was a man?
This is just stylistically razzing you. I am not this cynical and you are a qualified expert. The takeaway is that the status quo for patenting in software, and staff attorneys generally, is really unpopular, among highly educated people. There has to be major change.