I can't understand why you think Patel's article is better. I will grant that it is well written, but the argument is practically non-existent.
First, it's nowhere near a similar argument. Patel argues that software patents are fundamentally sound, they're just implemented poorly.
This article instead argues a position closer to my own which is that software patents are fundamentally broken because they can't be implemented correctly. The assumption in Patel's argument is that it's possible for the USPTO to police software patents effectively. Thus far this has not been shown to be the case. The argument in this blog post is that because of the nature of governmental regulation, this is impossible to do effectively. After reaching this conclusion, the conclusion must be that software patents are fundamentally broken.
Patel can make an argument that this is possible, but he doesn't.
First, it's nowhere near a similar argument. Patel argues that software patents are fundamentally sound, they're just implemented poorly.
This article instead argues a position closer to my own which is that software patents are fundamentally broken because they can't be implemented correctly. The assumption in Patel's argument is that it's possible for the USPTO to police software patents effectively. Thus far this has not been shown to be the case. The argument in this blog post is that because of the nature of governmental regulation, this is impossible to do effectively. After reaching this conclusion, the conclusion must be that software patents are fundamentally broken.
Patel can make an argument that this is possible, but he doesn't.