Summary: Examples of 'dirty laundry' of the patent microcosm, which it understandably does not like covering (as it harms confidence in their services/advice)

THE patent microcosm does not like to cover stories which are perceived/considered to be harmful to the patent microcosm. Simply put, the patent microcosm does not do journalism; it's all marketing and lobbying.

Lots of patent extremists, even front groups of Microsoft (see this complete list), have just decided to weigh in on a patent "scam" (not our term) which is misuse of tribal immunity in the US. But scams in the context of patents aren't so rare; in fact, we have covered plenty over the years.

"Simply put, the patent microcosm does not do journalism; it's all marketing and lobbying."Days ago we saw another example of the patent microcosm's malpractice, "based upon mishandled patent litigation". A blogger who habitually covers ethics (David) wrote: "Interesting case for a couple of reasons: (1) if you sue for fees you likely will face a counterclaim for malpractice (it’s not always but it is often); and (2) remember that because of Gunn v. Minton, malpractice cases based upon mishandled patent litigation or prosecution will be decided by state courts. I’ve testified in state courts on patent matters and it is a different world out there."

Another post from the same blog then alleged that in a NobelBiz case "the patent does seem fairly silly and also fraudulent."

"These sites/blogs typically dislike it when we pick out of them tidbits/stories which they would rather not emphasise."David has also just covered Lex Machina. "Someone signed on," he said, "but is (literally now) having a call with, I think a client, broadcasting this conversation on the training session. Not only that, they had the training call muted, so this person couldn’t hear the poor trainer trying to get his attention to stop broadcasting confidential information. She cancelled the call as a result, perhaps saving this fool from a disciplinary violation."

The funny thing about all this is that the above comes from Patently-O, which is itself a centerpiece of the patent microcosm. These sites/blogs typically dislike it when we pick out of them tidbits/stories which they would rather not emphasise. They want to disseminate information (selectively) and would rather not have it seen by the perceived opposition. IAM, for example, is promoting patent trolls, but in the process it also reveals to us their mischief. We'll give some examples in our next post. ⬆