> AFAIK, people skilled in prior art are often called into courts in order to arrive at the decision.
Well, yes, but they're typically experts from both sides whose goal is to promote their side's case, not accurately inform the jury. That's different from a jury having a direct understanding of the practitioners point-of-view.
> While I am still trying to understand what you mean, I do not yet see a connection of this to the anti-software patents view.
I'm saying that actual practitioners are likely (and, in my view, correctly) to see more things as obvious, fewer things as novel and so on than a layperson or a patent lawyer. The impact on patent lawsuits should be obvious.
Well, yes, but they're typically experts from both sides whose goal is to promote their side's case, not accurately inform the jury. That's different from a jury having a direct understanding of the practitioners point-of-view.
> While I am still trying to understand what you mean, I do not yet see a connection of this to the anti-software patents view.
I'm saying that actual practitioners are likely (and, in my view, correctly) to see more things as obvious, fewer things as novel and so on than a layperson or a patent lawyer. The impact on patent lawsuits should be obvious.