You're right db, logic IS lost...and seemingly few of us demand that in our daily lives. I will never understand how people are put into positions when they lack the knowledge it takes to do their duties effectively and efficiently....and ethically. (The 3 E's, if you will... lol)

Here is another response to this article

J Nicholas Gross • a day ago
Do me a favor Christina, please produce one reputable scientist who will attest that electrons are NOT “matter” or don’t…. matter. All computing machines and software manipulate, control and rely on electrons, which, last time I checked my late instructor Richard Feynman's treatise, are in the physical world, not the metaphysical world some of the ivory tower anti-patent crowd seems to live in. Thus, your definition of what should be patentable still clearly encompasses software method patents. I guess the anti SW patent folk will have to go back the virtual drawing board to "invent" some other slippery artificial distinction to protect the cause.

a humorous take on the article:
http://patentu.blogspot.mx/2014/09/elect...

I cannot understand her position. Is she saying no software should be patented? Suppose someone invents a new algorithm for channel equalization. Does she say the algorithm can be patented but not the software?

If she's against all software paents, what about FPGA firmware? What about embedded software colloquially referred to as firmware b/c it's not meant to be updated frequently?

It seems like she's saying if I make a box that does something useful, new, and non-obvious, I can patent it. But I can't patent it if the box contains only an FPGA eval board with firmware I developed. Why not?