>Not that this is a stellar patent, but from most of the comments on this thread, it is amply clear most here don't know how patents work.
Which comments are you referring to, what do they not understand about patents, and what makes that fact so "amply clear"?
At time of your writing, there are 18 comments in this thread (including your own), four of which comment on the patent directly. All except the grandparent are quite terse. One links to the patent, two express outrage but do not analyze the patent's content directly, and only one (by nknighthb) seems to make a claim about the validity of the patent with a direct reason.
You have a good point: That people have developed a knee-jerk outrage against patents without necessarily considering a number of related issues (e.g. claims and the system by which a patent is deemed to have been infringed). I ask for clarification because your own comment seems to have been a reactionary assumption to a type of comment which, as of yet, hasn't really entered the thread.
When I wrote that comment, in addition to the parent, a bunch of comments discussed the contents and possible "prior art", including specifically, the whole subthread where the actual patent is linked to on uspto.gov. Those are perfectly representative of the level of misunderstanding people here betray whenever a patent is discussed.
So, yes, my comment was a reaction to the general level of discourse on patents beyond just this specific one, but I would not call it knee-jerk. Case in point: the sibling comment to yours.
Which comments are you referring to, what do they not understand about patents, and what makes that fact so "amply clear"?
At time of your writing, there are 18 comments in this thread (including your own), four of which comment on the patent directly. All except the grandparent are quite terse. One links to the patent, two express outrage but do not analyze the patent's content directly, and only one (by nknighthb) seems to make a claim about the validity of the patent with a direct reason.
You have a good point: That people have developed a knee-jerk outrage against patents without necessarily considering a number of related issues (e.g. claims and the system by which a patent is deemed to have been infringed). I ask for clarification because your own comment seems to have been a reactionary assumption to a type of comment which, as of yet, hasn't really entered the thread.