Since the Transportation Department (who proposed the ban) has to rely on Congressional constitutional powers, the proposed ban will only be applicable to interstate drivers, pursuant to Congress' interstate commerce regulatory power. Although for as laxly as the Supreme Court is willing to interpret commerce to be, it's not an inconceivable stretch to include texting.

You raise an interesting point. Would a court be persuaded if the driver introduced their statement from their wireless carrier showing they didn't send or receive texts around the time of the citation? Or if the driver simply argues they weren't texting, can the state then pull their statement? It probably boils down to a question of state evidentiary rules and prosecuting economy, but when you can't be certain of a person's activities by simple observation, these questions inevitably arise.

...we need to address the more troubling issue; sexting while driving.

That's a good point, although this way you don't have to worry about developing a common law in every state's traffic court interpreting reckless driving to include texting while driving, or run the risk of some courts not interpreting in that way.

I would have thought private companies and municipalities would have already implemented protocols prohibiting texting while driving.

Then again, any patent on UNIX would have expired decades ago...

So by advocating for the abolishment of software patents, by induction you are bringing about the quicker arrival of a Terminator-type Judgment Day. Take your pro-machine propaganda elsewhere.

...on second thought, this is probably the best place for it.

I am curious what you believe an invention or an idea is, how you would define it. Could you explain further?

Nobody suggests that all inventors will stop inventing without a patent system. The idea of a garage inventor is reasonably argued as not significantly motivated by the hope of obtaining a patent. I argue against this position, for I know if I were such an inventor and saw an invention I was the first to invent in Walmart without any compensation to me, I would feel wronged. However, thinking about areas of science and technology where the cost of entry is high, the need for patent protection becomes clearer. Without sufficient protection, products that require substantial R&D expenditures are less likely to be developed because the developed product can then be produced by competitors. This is most evident in the field of pharmaceuticals, with the constant push-and-shove between developers and generics.

I'll gladly respond. First, your presumption that an idea that is going to be independently re-invented is already addressed in the patent code, specifically 35 U.S.C. 103, not allowing patents that are obvious. Given the expansive interpretation given to this section by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex, examiners are given the ammunition to reject claims for inventions that are likely to be independently re-invented, as these inventions are likely obvious. This is so because inventions that are likely to be independently re-invented are just that because there is a market demand for an invention, there is an associated motivation for an inventor to satisfy that demand. Hence, obvious.

Fair enough. However, the cost of entry is not considered in the patenting process. A fair remedy could be to have different standards of non-obviousness for some areas where entry costs (can) be low, i.e. software and mechanical applications, and another standard for areas where entry costs are high, i.e. pharmaceuticals. However, I would argue that this is unnecessary. If an examiner is truly an expert in the field, as they are presumed to be, they will be able to recognize those pieces of software which are obvious and those which are not, keeping in mind the inherent standards of obviousness for their area/art unit. I guess you call this hand-waving; I call this understanding the patent prosecution process.

If you feel that way, I encourage you to write your congressional representatives for a repeal of the patent system. Don't be too surprised if your view doesn't gather too much support.

Think of it in terms of how much entertainment you get out of one song compared to one movie. If we were buying the song from iTunes, would the worth of the movie be only five times that of one song? The length of the movie alone should warrant more than a five-times increase.