The last point you mentioned is the next logical step in the discussion I believe. As things stand, it would appear the company holding the patents is in the right, from a legal perspective, and that sucks for the little girl. However, were now at the juncture to call in to question the limits and extents of the Patent Clause created to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." On which side of the fence does this scenario fall on. Not such an easy question to answer. In what way do patents "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" anyways?
You make valid points, but make them at the wrong point in the discussion from the point of view of many people here. By seeing many, many examples of this sort, and by our own experiences in the industry, we've already discovered that software patents, in general, hinder 'the Progress of Science and useful Arts'. What you call 'the next logical step in the discussion' is a step we've taken a long time ago.
But, apparently, others who don't share our experience, have not. What would be the best way to explain the situation? Writing comments on hacker news is probably not going to influence any lawmakers....
