I am simply responding to what you have said! I ask for a rational argument against the author's claims. That is all I ask. You dismiss the author without any basis. How many years does it take to become a patent attorney? How many more years of practice before writing as an expert in the field? and on top of all of that, they are Objectivist. I want to protect your property rights. If you don't get that, and if you represent the majority of this site-we are fucked freedom (and I love you)

Bull, kh. You don't know me and you have no rational basis for that insult.
Not interested in an argument with you on this.
Regardless of my experience it is of no account to you, but someone who benefits from the patent business is above reproach. You trust the author's opinion; I do not.
You have your opinion (bias), I have mine, and the author has his. I have no vested interest in the business of patent law.

your definition of "bias" is they do not agree with you. you won't agree with an Objectivist patent attorney, you won't agree with an Objectivist law professor, regardless of their years of study and rational writing on the subject. That is a belief sir

(sigh) Unbiased ones.

we have two Objectivist experts on patents giving you important knowledge and you reject what they have to say. I'm picking Jesus today (as LS would say)

no, I am saying the author of the article has some distinction in the field but is not a patent attorney. make up your mind. Patent attornies are not experts on patents? ok-here is a professor who is not a patent attorney. Oh. He makes his living teaching about technology and patents. He's also not a valid expert.
"Articles written by a representative of the legal system are unconvincing and potentially biased." sigh. Adam Mossoff is an Objectivist who writes for ARI and gives talks there. You are on an Objectivist website. what kind of "experts" are you looking for?

You are saying that I should not consider the source of the article and I should blindly believe whatever the author says.
Articles written by a representative of the legal system are unconvincing and potentially biased.
In my opinion, the source of this article is biased.
I find no fault in Dale wanting to make the system work to encourage innovation and reward innovators.
Reforming the system must be done to benefit innovation in the industry and to encourage productivity by tens of thousands of software creators.
Shoving the "right" answer down the throats of productive people does not promote innovation and productivity. It suppresses productivity and competition.

Property rights are not majority rules. Most people voted for welfare, does that make it right.

This reasoning is faulty. To suggest someone has a bias not due to reason, without specific evidence (just making a living is not evidence) is an ad hominem attack. Here's the reality. Because of ignorance, of patent law and technology, Dale now has to routinely discourage clients from pursuing patents. The result of this across the entire nation is that people are not getting patents, don't secure funding and do not come out with new products and services. Ask Peter Thiel-he suggests trade secret because of this.That is Luddite think. That was Venice in the 1300s.

Unfortunately patent lawyers have a vested interest in more business just like lawyers in every field. (Present company excepted, db)
Most in the software industry didn't call for patent protection laws and most still think it is not beneficial to the industry.
The industry prospered without patent protection from inception.
It wasn't broken.
It didn't need to be fixed by lawyers, judges, and politicians.
The linked document is the opinion of a "scholar" who has vested interest in expansion of patent law.
Cui Bono.