This one always get's me going.

"Lastly, patent royalties should be taxed at higher rates than all other income, those royalties exist solely because of a grant of right from the people, an artifice the people have allowed and subsidized with their own tax dollars, and providing the citizens a share of the profits is not Bly reasonable, it is just."

I've tried to address some of your points below:

Copyrights do not cover utility patents.

I'm sorry, you'll need to narrow your argument down to what was in front of Judge Koh's court. Your comment rambles in too many directions, most of which wasn't a consideration in this decision.

I first saw a scroll bar in the early 1990's on an Apple. Are you referencing something before that?

I'm the only one complaining about the trolling the new system is allowing? Tony, love you man, but I can't believe this is the only "real complaint". Look, I love Giz and have always supported it, but this new system encourages trolling. I'm hopeful that the recent change helps to combat the trolling. I'm still…

I'm not going to defend the true patent trolls as I wrote many comments before and you are using as an argument for reform. As I stated previously, they are unfortunately a necessary evil to allow companies like MS and Apple whom employee thousands of engineers to create something unique for all of us. They need…

If you have to have directions on how to navigate though, isn't that a fail from a UI standpoint?

It's still difficult to follow. However, instead of saying 1 0f 16 replies etc., what about putting a littler burner icon next to the most popular thread. Visually, this would be easier to identify.

I remember the astronauts as real life hero's when I was growing up in the early 70's. Every Apollo mission there would be a new "official" patch and if you were a true fan, which you had to be at 5 or even 10 years old, you had to have the new patch.

Programmers don't create anything. Most are drones in my opinion, lets be honest here. Of course programmers will say that software patents are bad, because, and let's be honest, most programmers are not very talented and don't have original ideas of their own. However, how many programmers would turn down a $1…

"Cost benefit? If you have enough scratch and a good enough product, consequences be damned; you can shake it off."

"I'd like to zoom in using a circular motion with one finger, and zoom out using a counter-clockwise motion."

I don't think any of your opinions are supported by empirical evidence, but I'd be willing to read any sources you offer.

This seems overly emotional. I can not address emotional responses such as this. You need to give some examples of what you want to convey.

I agree with you, but that is a necessary evil to the broader consideration of protecting innovators.

Most of what you have described as "techniques that most if not all people will arrive at on their own...." is not a legal or even a technical argument, it is an emotional argument.

Patents don't limit consumer choice. The lack of imagination limit's consumer choice.

Patents don't limit consumer choice. The lack of imagination limit's consumer choice.