Also, I'm not so sure getting rid of the Alice dual test would be in the best interests of all, as those tests ring as sound and necessary to me, if applied correctly. The way I read Koh's interpretation, meticulously laid out in her 45 pg deciosion, she at least sounds like she knows what she is doing in applying the alice tests. I agree w/her in principal only, as the patent language and the decision language is beyond my ability to fully understand. She may be wrong, she may be right. My very limited comprehension of the patent language, I thought was too vague. I thought it got lost in details, but the details lacked the necessary exactness & pertinence. That was just a feeling I got from my read. I thought there should be more elegance in simplicity. I thought the language got lost in itself, but again, just the feeling it gave me. The language made me think it was designed to lose the reader. That's why, several times, I asked for fully IP qualified, outside, 3rd party, experts to step up and evaluate the patents, but that never happened in all those years that im aware of. That fact impressed me or unimpressed me largely, I should say. There was one guy, a year or 2 ago, who said he was an IP expert or lawyer, but who would not identify himself, who said the patents were good and that the lawyers were making the proper arguments, but he made 1 post and then disappeared.. Other than that, I've never seen any outside experts step up here and lend expert support for the patents. In my case, my belief that the patents are not "all that" is based on that lack of outside support and the lack of a sale or even 1 lousy lecense or settlement. Simple. Speaks for itself. Pretty undeniable.