The FSF needs pragmatism

The FSF needs pragmatism

> ... this section seemed to go into too much detail ...

That's a question for an expert, so I consulted two lawyers specialised in the Supreme Court. One said "short and readable" and the other said "list every possible thing that could give them a reason to listen to you" :-/ We already had a long text already partly written, so we used it.

> I didn't notice anything about NPEs or "patent trolls".

Our corporate allies (Red Hat and kinda Google) and our corporate enemies (IBM and Microsoft) are the main victims of trolls. They're already working on a solution (the Patent Reform Act). If I was writing the only amicus brief, then I would have worked this point, but in the actual context it wasn't necessary since others would do it more authoratively.

But, who will point out the issue of individuals, low-cost SMEs, and communities of developers needing to be free to write and distribute software? That's where we could make a needed contribution.

> Now, in a separate vein of thought, I was very confused about the "as a whole doctrine" sections.

If the patent is "software on a (standard) computer", then the computer should be separated out because it's non-innovative and only contributes "insignificant post-solution activity". Then you're left with software, and there's the possibility that it will be found to be a non-patentable abstract idea. The problem is that the CAFC ignored the "insignificant post-solution activity" and so applied "as a whole" to indescrimiately, which means that the computer won't be separated out. The inclusion of something you can drop on your foot (a computer), makes it almost impossible to reject the claim as being just an abstract idea.

> it would be the end user who assembles the final device who would be liable. No?

The separation mentioned is for the examiner to decide if the patent is valid in the first place. If they don't approve the application, then it can't be infringed by anyone.