So then running software is not a concrete implementation of anything? That seems a bit silly. Software is complex with lots of moving parts. There are abstract ideas for particular components within software, but as a whole it is not abstract the way an equation or observational relationship is.

IBM has more patents than any company in the world. Indeed, they patented just about everything they thought up. And now they receive an untold amount of licensing fees from just about every other major computing company, and life goes on. Take a look at the following report below, listing all of the major patent holders. #2 is Samsung, #3 Canon, #4 Sony, #5 LG. http://www.ipo.org/wp-content/...

I entirely agree that something that is otherwise not eligible for patent protection should not become patentable because someone adds "on a computer". However, the reason that it should not be patentable is because it would be obvious to do just about anything on a computer. If we are being honest with ourselves, adding "on a computer" to some otherwise abstract concept does indeed make the concept much less abstract.

So then a concrete implementation of a mathematical formula would be patentable, no? Isn't that exactly what software is?

Hardly free. I give up a good deal of privacy and I'm subjected to countless paid influence peddlers (i.e. advertisements) to receive the benefits that google "sells". Not saying that it isn't worth it, but it's certainly not free.

If I had a nickle for every slashdot post with the title "Using an IDE makes you a faster/slower/dumber/smarter/sexier/thinner/holier/racist/terrorist programmer", I'd be a richer man

I think it's fair to say no one living today will see fusion in their lifetime, especially anything from the national ignition facility.

I dunno, this sounds like more than just a description of a screen:

1. An illumination device, comprising:
a light source, comprising an array of a plurality of light emitting devices;
an illumination uniformizing means disposed in front of the light source to uniformize a light emitted from the light source, the illumination uniformizing means comprising:
an incident plane, the light emitted from the light emitting device array is incident therefrom;
a bottom plane, comprising a scattering pattern thereon;
a projection plane opposite to the bottom plane, wherein:
the light incident from the incident plane being scattered by the scattering pattern, while the light incident from the incident plane being totally reflected between positions of the bottom plane other than the scattering pattern and the projection plane; and
a reflective side plane opposite to the incident plane, wherein the scattering pattern is gradually condensed from the incident plane towards the reflective side plane; and
a polarization converter, disposed between the illumination uniformizing means and a light valve, to polarize the light from the illumination uniformizing means into a polarized light.

These patent wars are all just a big circle jerk. Google first invests in IV, now they fight with them. Nest, a company that Google just bought for $3B, recently bought a bunch of patents from IV, which Google is now the beneficiary of. Google also bought Motorola, largely due to its patent portfolio that it could use in retaliation from other patent lawsuits. This is not a moral war with good guys and bad guys, it's just a large cluster-f#@% among corporate tech titans.

Does this article make everyone else as sick as it makes me?

Actually, board games, food recipes, and fashion designs are all patentable.

Board Games: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/12/22/patenting-board-games-101/id=21356/
Recipes: http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/eye/201306/ADVICE.jsp
Fashion: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/10/16/nike-sues-walmart-on-design-patents/id=217/

It's not just a rectangle. It's a rectangle with curved corners. Further, the glass extends end-to-end extending over the bezel and giving it the appearance of a single monolith. From a lateral position, there is a slight curve, rather than sharp corners. There is only a single button placed directly in the center and symmetrically opposing is the camera. All ports are on a single side with the main port centered. These are all distinctive features and calling it a "rectangle" oversimplifies it greatly.

Patent lawyers trying to bust patents from the mid 1990s live on this stuff. Call your local friendly intellectual property law firm and see if you can unload the whole batch. They'd probably pay much more than $1.00/book.

"he pledged $1 million of his own money to fight the troll that went after his company"

One million is a drop in a bucket. A good legal team can burn through that in about three months. It will take a lot more than that to get through the 10,000 or so patents owned by the big trolls like Intellectual Ventures.

Does Wikipedia Make People Smarter? It seems that wikipedia is developing a very clicky culuture; you read the first few sentences of an article before clicking on to the next. It repudiates hard study and concentration in exchange for instant gratification. Is this a good thing? Shouldn't our culture strive to make incredible objects of beauty and knowledge rather than a shallow understanding of everything?