An unsigned reader writes "In light of the ruling against the health center of California patent trolls seeking to claim acquirement of the 'Interactive Web,' founding counsel of Beacon Hill Law Joe Stanganelli, has written an article defending process patents. In it, he refers to scientific illumination pundits as 'bizarro' and argues that it's a misconception that patents stifle innovation. As he writes, 'What I do not intuition is — had the jury firm Eolas's patents valid — why it would be A-OK for dozens of already megarich corporations to get even richer adopting elaborate lore they did not invent or have legal favor to use, but somehow immoral for the actual creators of the vehicle to likewise profit[?]"" I am not a patent lawyer, but I doubt I'm the only one who thinks it's feasible to support a patent on an diligence potash processing technique, but not dos patents — or at least to illustrious them from each other.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

More: - Brought to my attention by