reply to Goober
Re: Holding companies are the problem.... I'm not sure I am seeing a valid argument for or against anything I said beyond your seizure one, which I would say no to if it is software based. Hybrid solution would result in the hardware being patented and the software being copyrighted exclusive of one another.
The method you got it to work with software is copyrighted and cannot be reproduced, but the end result is what you really want to patent (no seizures because of your software) and thus you want to restrict anyone else from "innovating" even better software to accomplish the same goal without paying you first. We could extent this to say once someone comes up with any concept for an end result and patents it, then nobody can do anything to come up with that end result without first paying the patent holder. One example of this that comes to mind is the One-Click shopping cart patent.
Your first point, that it has been that way for years, is kind of silly. Blacks use to be owned and women couldnt vote. I am pretty sure we are better off now because we didnt have people sitting around saying.... it's been that way for years so we cant change it. The system is clearly broke and I would argue one of the main reasons it is broken is because concepts and theories are patented too much.
Unless you know the history of patent filings, you have no basis on which to call my assertion silly. Read up a little on the case law and history before making comments like that.
No more corruption, lying and unremitting stupidity by Obama. Impeach the clueless, anti-business, socialist now.
Really? You are saying because it has always been that way so we can't change it is silly regardless of history and my lack of knowledge concerning patents.
Case law or not. It can be changed with laws being enacted by Congress.
READ the history. Constructive reduction to practice has NOT always been that way. I'm done with you.