that this article is opinion driven without an facts to support its view. It uses words such as "stupid" to describe patents, without the author citing claims at issue or showing he has knowledge in inventions or claim construction. There is no easy way to go through all of his examples to determine. It is merely an editorial. db has spent hours upon hours going through the Alice patent. He would strongly disagree with the opinion of this article. If Alice patented something so well known-how is it that no one else was doing it before them? How is it possible the inventions of Alice took it from a startup to an international company Why is it CLS would even copy the method if it were not novel? There are clear timelines here to CLS using the invention after Alice had success. No one wants to talk about that...

code is copyright-able. Think of software patents as a way of configuring electrical circuits. The idea is not the code. The code impliments the idea. In this case, it was an electronic way of escrowing. It was novel and brought in tons of business for Alice. When CLS started copying the method, Alice lost potential business, so they sued for infringement.