Lol – no one was saying that the point is ‘narrow’ (but at least you seem to be walking back a bit your attempt to insert some other point).

It reminds me of your other ‘walk backs’ after you try to admonish me to ‘understand what others are writing’ — when I show that not only do I already understand what others are writing, i point out that you are not doing what you are recommending that I do. I fully ‘get’ that you have a point (a different point), but that just does not mean that every point must be subservient to the point that you want to make.

Here, the point is that there is a parallel going on. Much like the Chinese have bolstered filings in the US Sovereign (making a pullout a concern for the US Sovereign), the US has bolstered filings in the EP ‘Sovereign,’ and making a US pullout a concern for the EP ‘Sovereign.’

My second point DOES have to do with the nature of the US filings that have bolstered the EP ‘Sovereign.’

I was asking the first to poke fun at MaxDrei with how easy ‘scriviners’ get around the “as such” and “per se” limitations against business methods and software in order to obtain patent protection for types of innovation that have been under attack in the US. Have you seen how muted his ‘enthusiasm’ has been for these facts? This is NOT just “some” as you seem to want to label this (leastwise, per the article I provided). This is a driver not only for AN increase, but for the LARGEST increase in the EPO.

You need to be able to set aside your own points once in a while in order to grasp the different topics being put on the table for discussion. As I stated, this point simply is not about the point that you want to make about the US Sovereign’s condition and your predictions about that US Sovereign.