Yes that would be correct but for a couple of important considerations. Patent law, unlike common law is statute driven. The legislature promulgates the law that they want to be followed. Common law, read judge created law, is far more malleable. If a past case (written by a previous judge) says so and so judges are bound by a principle called stare decisis, to stand by previous decisions. But Judges can, and often do, find justification to ignore or change precedent. This is what we see in the abortion cases Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood, et. al. But statutory law cannot be ignored so easily. And if a judge does it will be appealed and then overturned. [Judges fear getting overturned because it makes them look bad] And unlike the common law with hundreds and thousands of cases statutory law is relatively (from a legal perspective) black and white. The legislature says they can do this therefore they can do this. Judges can gripe and try to shame attorneys not to bring these actions, but ultimately they have to accept them or be overturned by a higher judge. Of course, the Attorney bringing the case might be in the dog-house with the judge, but what does he care. His client is the one putting food on his table and judges good graces don't pay the bills.
An anonymous reader writes "Scientists explore how violent video games are exemplary aggression teachers — This paper presents conceptual and empirical analyses of several of the "best practices" of learning and instruction, and demonstrates how violent video games use those practices effectively to teach aggression. It documents how violent video games motivate learners to persevere in learning and mastering skills to navigate through complex problems and changing environments — just like good teachers do."