Uhm, that sounds like a flawed argument. Because this discussion touches on the work of computer scientists as well. Can't they have a say when their work is being affected by derailed legislation?
It is like saying to environmental activists: sorry but you have no degree in nuclear physics, so please shut up.
PS: What I do agree on, is that slashdot seems to endlessly keep its focus on the validity of patents, instead of looking for solutions, and finding a road to get to that solution. But that would require social engineering, which is too boring, I guess.
I understand what you're saying, but I think your argument breaks down on a technicality. This article is more about the ramifications of a specific patent, before a lawsuit is filed or a laptop actually stopped at customs (like the recent, unfortunate HTC problems). Your 'environmental activists' analogy doesn't quite work here.. To my mind, this is more like if the environmental activists were scrutinizing specific scientific research papers or deciding their merit based on how the studies were performed. Not qualified. It's a lawyer's job to actually forecast whether a specific patent is going to trigger lawsuits or cause industry to alter its course. That's what people's comments have centered around.
