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 to Permit Delay in Meeting Certain Prioritized Examination Requirements | Main | IPO Webinar on Myriad/Mayo Guidance »

March 13, 2014



Nothing new here from the Economist, yet another spinmeister publication. The Economist is on par with the likes of Bessen/Meurer. Our problem is that, as we argue the facts/evidence/law, these folks launch a vitriolic PR campaign that is, unfortunately, being accepted by a naïve and gullible public, and being fostered by Goliaths who don't want competition. Fortunate for us we have folks like Ron Katznelson who are exposing this malarkey for what it is and as you point out: unsubstantiated conclusions having no basis in fact and showing complete ignorance of what the law is.


Thanks. My concern was that The Economist is more widely respected than many mainstream publications. Too bad they are falling into the same trap.


Good rebuttal. Thanks for carrying the torch another mile.

Good response; did you ask The Economist to publish it?

Yes, we submitted an abridged version as a letter to the editor.


Michael and Andrew,

I witnessed something recently that helps explain the current patent legislation effort. I was at a luncheon put on in one of the Senate buildings in Washington DC. The stated purpose of the meeting was to explain how the target of the proposed patent legislation is “patent trolls,” not independent inventors. The five panelists proceeded to repeat the “patent troll” narrative, but one panelist added something very significant – that Eli Whitney (inventor of the cotton gin) was the first “patent troll.” This was said, and about 100 individuals heard it. An independent inventor who seeks to defend his constitutionally granted intellectual property rights is a “patent troll?” I don’t think it is the “patent trolls” that need to be stopped.

Just goes to show the disconnect between perception of the issue and the reality.

Perhaps someone set up a tent and camp out in this individual's back yard until he develops an understanding of what the right to exclude means.

"Heating water itself might occur in nature, but the application of that "natural" process to "make tea" does not. "

Interesting assertion. You think no tea leaves have ever fallen into hot water before in nature? I mean, seems unlikely to me.

"Instead, it is easy for a commentator to read the patent's title, abstract, part of its summary, or a few of its drawings, and then provide an over-simplified synopsis of what the patent allegedly covers."

Well maybe you legal geniooses should have thunk about that when you were coming up with the "claims" system of patenting things that makes no sense to the ordinary person.


Maybe the media should spend a few minutes to get their facts straight and learn how to read a patent before writing an article. Oh wait, facts don't sell but hyperbolic reporting does...never mind.


The comments to this entry are closed.

April 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 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