Government in bed with... military industrial complex (Cheney) Afghanistan/Iran/Iraq Hoax Wars and highway robbery of our youth.
Government in bed with... Wall St. financial collapse + Wall St.'s "Mortgage Bailout" and highway robbery of the tax dollar.
Government in bed with... Journalism government "tuned" journalism and highway robbery of any journalistic independence.
Dilution of Common Rights & Principles more Plutonomics (See Michael Moore's film, "Capitalism: A Love Story").
-- Bottom Line --
US Democracy US Peasantocracy (no rights, no power, no money: See "The Matrix"; yes, "The Matrix" but with a plutonomics view).

The regulator is not naive. He knows he's rubberstamping, and giving a lame excuse.

If I were debugging a program and I said:

'I think this is a trustful design change we are making. There can't be a design fault because it is the final result of a long debugging session between the application and me.'

You would probably think I was crocked in the head. Long sessions usually indicate deep faults, not easy design fixes. Long negotiations don't suddenly become "trustful" just because the two parties couldn't get close enough for amicable agreement. This negotiator knows that. He's part of a scam.

In other words, he's not naive, but we would be naive to believe that this agreement is anything but a hoax, or that he's innocent of this hoax.

This agreement is not the usual rubberstamp you are looking for. Move along.

Software Patents are no more than Business Land Mines in the form of Monopolies. The whole idea of monopolizing an idea is ludicrous. The idea of choosing what's innovative and what's not is absurd. If necessity is the mother of all invention (and it usually is), then one man's "innovation" is another's necessity.

Business-wise, they are nothing more than government granted monopolies, and hidden land mines. They are totally ludicrous from a social perspective because they hurt everyone.

I lied.

They don't hurt *everyone*. Patents feed IP (Intellectual Property) lawyers and subsidize the legal industry. Think of them as a legalized tax to subsidize IP lawyers and law firms (while clogging the courts, impeding software engineers, and increasing software business risk and expense).

Which brings me to a first-hand observation: When software developers fought the patenting of software at the USPTO hearings, one side of the room was lawyers, and the other side was software engineers. One side was in favor of institutionalizing s/w patents, the other against. (Guess which side was which.) Aside from the merit of anyone's arguments, the sides were well represented since the room was crowded on both sides of the aisle (how did people know which side they belonged on!?).

I lied again.

The front table... you know... the one making the final decision... was ALL LAWYERS. So much for balanced representation and due process.

Yup. Foregone conclusion. The all lawyer council hosted the hearings, presented the issues like it was being debated, and then rubberstamped it into existence. We're still suffering, without a fix in sight.

You don't believe me? Just ask Bruce Lehmann. He ran the USPTO, railroaded software patents into existence using his position. Oh, I'm sure he'll lie and tell you he did no such thing, but he did. (Oh, and see WTO and DMCA for follow-ups by same guy. He's not a brainjob by my reckoning, just a puppet.) I believe the legal industry pulled a fast one on Joe Public with software patents, and is still raking in the big bucks while innovation, good business, good government, and consumer product development suffer.