About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Roche's Bid for Ventana Medical Systems Hits Snag | Main | Good News, Bad News for ARIAD in NF-kB Case »

July 10, 2007


To our readers:

Others (well, one other) have noticed that Quillen and Webster subsequently backed off the 97% number, and to be fair Lemley and Moore also didn't go quite so far, either, so we changed the numbers to more accurately reflect the parties' actual positions.

This does not change the fact that the 97% number was widely quoted as evidence that the patent system is "broken" nor does it diminish the responsibility of those who don't really care about the facts but are motivated by their own technology and self-interest to advocate patent law changes that we believe would be detrimental to the economic prosperity of the country. We will continue to post about this topic.

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31