And actually, the evil businesses he is targeting are not cheats. They followed the law to the letter. Blame congress for leaving the loop holes.
It is more fundamental than that. A business must make a profit to survive. Think about plain and simple truth for a moment...
Now think about this:
A business never pays any taxes. It merely collects the taxes levied on it by government by increasing the price of the goods and services it provides or by lowering the wages of its employees.
A sucky one though. I doubt many programmers on this board want to be in a position that the work they produce for a company is essentially worthless and the way to move up is through the tech support department. I also doubt customers would benefit either since giving away the software and charging for support creates an incentive to make shoddy software that requires a lot of hand-holding.
That might hold true until your competitor realises what you are doing and makes a better offer to the customer.
As a business customer I want Free as in Freedom software (to avoid vendor lock-in) that is easy to use (to lower total-cost-of-ownership) and comes with "enterprise" level support (for the edge cases I create that eventually break things in some way).
As a vendor I want software that is cheap to build and maintain over the long run, and I want to build brand loyalty (even in a fiercely competitive market) by delivering a great product, and I don't want to have to maintain a huge support staff that eats into the profits I make by selling support contracts. Enterprise customers will pay for support simply because it eliminates some risk, even if they never actually have to pick up the phone and use it.
Obama took out of his Presidential campaign to vote in favor of spying on innocent Americans.
What did you expect?
With little real world experience in law (currently in my second year of law school concentrating in Intellectual Property), I was surprised by the analogy drawn by the patent attorney in the article. He mentions that doctor's have learned to deal with patents on the medical devices they use, so lawyers will have to learn to deal with patents on business processes. The better analogy would be if Doctor's could not perform a particular surgery or surgical technique because it had a business patent. This would most certainly cause outrage in the medical community. As a software engineer, I have seen first hand how patents on business processes (especially obvious ones) can limit innovation in the software development field. It will be interesting to see how the "self-regulating" field of law will resolve this question of patentability of business processes.