Design patents aside, of course.

You're saying a better way to handle it is to get no legal protection and just hope that Zynga never decides to copy them? Worse insanity, particularly because we've seen it fail, over and over.

Patent litigation is frequently done on contingency. That's like saying "I can't afford to have you place a bet for me, because if it wins, I have to give you a share of the huge pile of free money I get."

Why should it? After all, I believe a wise man once said, "The only way to beat a company that steals your best ideas is to keep coming up with better ones." Similarly, the only way to beat a company that comes up with the best ideas and patents them is to come up with better ones, right? Or pay a reasonable license fee if you can't come up with a better idea.

[Citation needed]. The USPTO currently rejects around 95% of patent applications in this industry, so if they've got a rubberstamp, it says "DENIED".

If you read anything in detail, then ask yourself immediately afterwards if you could think of what you just read, you'd say yes. It's called hindsight. The question is whether any competent developer would have thought of it before reading the patent. And that takes evidence to prove, not a gut feeling based solely on "I understand what I just read, so therefore it must be obvious."

That's socialism!! I signed my pledge not to raise taxes etc

Zynga goes after indie and mobile developers for whom copyright is useless, unlike you giant AAA players. So they're the poster child for why software patents are a horrible idea? That makes no sense. Software patents - or being a multi-million dollar AAA developer - are the only thing that can stop them.

In fact, it's actually the classic story justifying why patents should exist: you've got small innovators whose ideas are copied by a ruthless giant corporation, and other giant corporations - such as your own - ignore the issue.

The cost of the drive is not the hardware.

It is how much will an outage cost? A few hundred more is pocket change. A piece of mind too. You claim you hqve data? I have data too. Go google Seagate RMA? Shitty defective drives. Even western digital has bad drive batches. The poster above says seagate and consumer drives failed within his own eyes. Sure if you got a good batch you are good I guess?? Would you bet your job on it?

Firmware for enterprise drives have logging and more advanced features anyway. Same arguments pop up over consumer vs professional cards in flamewars. One is slightly slower and 4x as much. why? It's drivers and firmware are certified to not have visual distortions when making a commercial or bsod on a project. It is worth the cost.

The price difference is not worth it anyway

But the conversation is obsolete as intel and Samsung are introducing enterprise ssds

There are such mechanisms - ex parte reexamination (available from 1981 until 2012) and post-grant review (available since 2012). And it works as you say - a panel of senior examiners review the patent, in response to a challenge, which can be based on obviousness or other issues.

Thing is, it's not started with just someone screaming "that's obvious! Review the patent!" Just like we don't go through a full trial based on someone merely saying "that guy's guilty of a crime!" or "that guy owes me money!", the challenge or complaint has to meet a minimum threshold for likelihood of invalidity/guilt/liability. If you do your homework and search for some good prior art, then you can challenge the patent. If you don't do that homework, and just make a conclusory claim, then your challenge will get immediately dismissed, as it should be.

They haven't forgotten it - what they realize is that they have to prove that a person with ordinary skill in the art could come up with the claimed invention based on the prior art. It's not something as simple as a gut feeling of "this is obvious", particularly because they get that gut feeling after reading the patent application. If it's a really well written application, super clear with tons of explanatory diagrams and examples, the end result should feel pretty obvious, in hindsight... but that says nothing about whether, one day before without reading that application, someone could come up with it.

So, they have to prove obviousness using evidence that was available on that previous day, and specifically, if they can show that all of the elements in the claimed invention were known on that day and could be easily combined, then it's obvious. So, for example, if peanut butter sandwiches are known and riding bicycles is known, then "eating a peanut butter sandwich, but on a bicycle!" is obvious, even if no one has ever done that particular combination before. The question is where there's some element of the invention that no one actually has ever done before - turning at an intersection based on a degree of tire rotation to peanuts crunched per bite ratio exceeding a threshold - then proving that that is obvious gets a lot tougher.

Copyright is great for protecting that specific piece of software from piracy. It does almost nothing to prevent another developer from doing a copycat game. That's why Zynga laughs at copyrights, but does file a bunch of patent applications.

The remaining 30 claims were also quite a bit narrower than Claims 31-35, so this decision wouldn't necessarily indicate they're likely invalid.

The problem with this is a simple matter of time. The stars thus created don't have the luxury of billions of years, or tens of billions of years in the case of lower-mass stars than our sun, to evolve complex life. It would also be a problem that, if they were to survive long enough to evolve a space-faring civilization, they would need to find a way to carry the escape velocity from the black hole in addition to all of the other energy necessary just to get away from their home planet.

Also when people think of super massive black holes they think of violent, scary, life suckling masses. Compared to the smaller ones they are tamer as they have such a great surface area that stars near there can stay for away from the event horizon for billions of years due to subtripical force and the fact gas gets pulled from great distances

You also get products for which satirical reviews are themselves a meme, such as Three Wolf Moon shirts.

(or are they fake?)

Are they going to start suing over that as well?

No privatize in this way is more government. Government creates monopolies. Competition destroys them.

The city owns the sidewalk and can open it up if they want. But it is easier to shake hands with certain companies and hand them a monopoly.

The solution is not more government that created the problem but less every time.

Well why is it that we have illegals in the US crossing the border then? Why aren't Americans willing to do these jobs?

Yes they are lazy and I say this as one. They are unwilling to work or better themselves or keep a job long enough to have that resume to work out into a decent standard of lving.

Libertarians are opposed to any title. Why can't we instead of creating monopolies who corrupt we can let competitor's come in.

Ignorant view of libertarians.

A libertarian will argue the government created these monopolies in the 1st place. The solution then is not more government. But less where competitors can come in and compete.