I guess a lot of developers believe that software patents such as these don't pass the "non-obvious" test, and therefore filing one is seen as wrong. I know that when I read some software patents (I haven't read this one, so not sure about this case), I think that if I had the same problem, I could solve it without too much trouble. Does this make the patent obvious? We have copyright law to protect the implementation - shouldn't that be enough. We're often told that idea's are worth less (worthless?), it's how they're executed. But this puts the power (and the money) in the hands of someone who had an idea and a general specification on how to implement it.