Patent policy, according to some, is a matter of "national security crisis."

Should we restart nuclear drills?

Summary: The levels of unprecedented drama, or the attempts to induce panic, have reached laughable levels; just because the United States adopts saner patent policies does not mean doom and gloom, except for people who work for the patent 'industry'

MARCH is approaching, so it may be way too late for new year's resolutions. One thing I'm beginning to realise is that it's pointless and hopeless debating with patent maximalists. They keep thinking (or lying to themselves) that US demise is purely due to patent policy, notably patent reform (we debunked that nonsense several times earlier this month), they think that technology companies are the most evil thing in their country, and many deny the very existence of patent trolls. They may never start using logic. They reject facts. The patent system is being improved, not "killed", but here they go saying that it "is now a national security crisis."

No, it's not a "national security crisis." Maybe it's just a crisis to parasitic professions like particular lawyers and patent trolls. When I said this to one of them he responded by repeatedly saying that I am "a shill for Google." [1, 2]

They say the same thing about others whom they don't like; they're seeing "Google" in everything.

"Yesterday we wrote about spin and judge-bashing (Professor Crouch made an offensive and potentially racist mockery of a judge with Mexican heritage, insinuating he does not care about facts)."I've never worked for them either directly or indirectly, but that does not seem to matter to these people. "To even suggest I have anything to do with Google is to associate oneself with conspiracy theories," I told him. "I write lots of negative things about Google."

Then again, speaking to people who are literally burning things in front of the USPTO (in a group of less than a dozen people, which makes the protest laughable) is probably a waste of time. It was an unauthorised protest and it basically made patent maximalists look like a bunch of radicals (which many of them are). This particular person writes regularly for Watchtroll, so it's not a mere fringe. Yesterday we wrote about spin and judge-bashing (Professor Crouch made an offensive and potentially racist mockery of a judge with Mexican heritage, insinuating he does not care about facts). Even yesterday we saw that same case being spun by the patent microcosm. Dion Bregman and Karon Fowler (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP) are the latest to spin/distort Aatrix for shameless self-promotion purposes. Here's what they said: "The decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc. clarified that although Section 101 of the US Patent Act is ultimately a question of law, it may involve subsidiary fact questions that may preclude a Section 101 decision at the pleadings stage. As such, parties to patent proceedings should consider their long-term strategies for Section 101 challenges under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)."

"...when dealing with the patent zealots/maximalists one can assume "alternative facts" and resistance to logic, common sense, objectivity. All they care about is making more sales (services), which necessitate public misunderstandings."This decision, like the one that's mentioned in conjunction (a case against HP), was not specifically about Section 101 and it has since then been largely ignored by the same court. We wrote more than half a dozen posts about it, but we don't expect the patent microcosm to stop obsessing over misinterpretation and hype, calling these decisions "blockbusters".

Anyway, the bottom line is, when dealing with the patent zealots/maximalists one can assume "alternative facts" and resistance to logic, common sense, objectivity. All they care about is making more sales (services), which necessitate public misunderstandings. ⬆