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.

Contact the Docs


  • "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


« USPTO Seeks to Effectively Double Provisional Application Period | Main | AMP v. USPTO: What Everyone Else Is Saying »

April 05, 2010



As I've noted earlier, the 60 Minutes segment was biased in extreme. No way that Kevin got a fair opportunity to present the other side of this story. I had to bite my tongue throughout I was so angry at the factual, scientific, and legal distortion of the issues. No doubt about it, there was no fairness or objectivity in this segment. The "Kool-Aid" drinking on the 60 Minutes web site on this segment is unreal.

I'm told (by 6) that the CBS/60 Minutes website has additional footage.


Let me offer an update on what's going over at the 60 Minutes web site. Not everyone is drinking "Kool-Aid" over there. There are a few who realize and acknowledge how slanted the segment was.

Does anyone know the name of the companies that were sent the cease and desist orders for violating the patent rights?

Given the past performance of "60 Minutes" is anyone surprised? The general slant has been strongly left wing (i.e., statist and anti-corporate) as long as I can remember, both in terms of the selection of issues and in their presentation.

60 minutes obviously did not do their homework. Note that Dr. Jonas Salk is a coinventor of 7 U.S. patents.


Thanks for doing the "homework" 60 Minutes failed to do. Why doesn't this surprise me? This whole 60 Minutes segment is a farce, a travesty and an insult to reporting the facts, science, and law anywhere near accurately or objectively. But try to convince the "Kool-Aid" drinkers of that who are submitting most of the comments on the 60 Minutes web site.

And Dr. Salk was not a patent attorney, so why should we care about his opinion on what should/shouldn't be patentable?

Yes Kev, but unfortunately those extra little pieces were only about 1.5 minutes each. So, total, you might have gotten 3 minutes yourself. Either way, you didn't get to touch on much of the interesting stuff like they did in this new broadcast. However, even in this broadcast they barely scratch the surface.

The arguments can't be biased if they are against patenting genes. Why? Because genes, as they exist, are not patentable. It would be like saying an argument that 2 + 2 = 4 is biased because it doesn't give enough discussion for the 2 + 2 = 11 crowd.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

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