When we see from W how little we know about color or certainty, how little we can define our enclosed capacity for thought, how then are we to have any confidence whatsoever when we try to work with concepts existing at very high levels of abstraction?  Experts appear to know how to relate to such things, but in truth, we rely upon their mere assurances in areas where nothing equivalent to proof exists.

I wonder whether the first real invention of man was something like the hammer, the knife, the wheel, or whether it might not have been the "business model?"

In an age where we now patent software, algorithms, ideas, business processes, genetic alterations, it is no longer possible to use a scale and yardstick to define a business transaction.  It is no longer even possible to directly observe a phenomenon to study it and abstract its meaning. What was the value of a dot com?  If we cannot define thought, action, existence very well, how can we possibly know how to react to someone's alleged "intellectual property?"

I always thought the greatest watershed in human existence was the use of money,  ie: the  "business model."
Businesses will exist long after humans are dead.  They will be run by the matrix-like machines of industry, maximizing profits, forever. Humans are not necessary, nor even desirable in a good business plan. We all know that now.

The courts struggling with patent requests makes good side-by-side reading with W.   I think W would agree you should not try to patent this kind of stuff.  Off course, if you can, it's very lucrative for business.

www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php