Currently there are around 50,000 patent applications per week submitted to the patent office. The patent office is backlogged with invention. That does not signify that the patent office is not doing its job, although those of us who care about invention wish the patent office had more resources. What it signifies is that the innovative engine that propels technological progress is humming sweet music.

A recent study by a team at the Illinois Institute of Technology, studying 74 gene patents, found that 38% of the claims were problematic. Another way to say the same thing would be that 62% of gene patent claims studied were considered completely valid, while the remainder from the small number of patents examined (74) were considered problematic. Of the problematic claims, the researchers stated, only 20% were considered potentially wanting in novelty or definiteness; the other 80% were dinged for having flimsy disclosures, or the researchers having doubts about utility. The big picture result of the study: the patent office is doing a fair job. But that's not how it was reported in the press, or the story even sold to the press, because that's not news.

eBay has been battling MercExchange for patent infringement. Desperate at losing in court, eBay prompted ex parte re-examination of the patents. MercExchange just this week received an office action, and the press went cock-a-hoop over eBay's "victory". Even publicity-hungry patent attorneys who know better were being quoted spewing tripe about it.

Seems that the home folks are rooting for eBay, because they love buying used and cheap at eBay auctions (fooled again), and MercExchange is a patent troll. Excuse me, but maybe Tom Woolston of MercExchange was a visionary inventor who foresaw the future in online auctioning, got patents, and has been battling a huge patent infringer that's used every tactic, shoddy or not, to get itself off the hook. Want a little more on this dissenting view? Here's a backgrounder from AuctionBytes. When the dust settles and eBay is found guilty of infringing at least one claim of at least one MercExchange patent (hey kids, that qualifies as infringement), remember which patent prophet you read it from first.

Software developers who can't even design decent user interfaces, or write robust code, and haven't invented anything, can bitch about not having patents by complaining that there shouldn't be any. No, the press doesn't report it that way.

I once had a car mechanic who explained that he had seen so many broken cars that he just knew that cars were just no good, and they were made that way on purpose. If car repair merited press coverage, he'd be a poster boy.

A sizable chunk of my living is made by invalidating patents, or at least trying to. My big-picture impression to questionable patents is that many innovative ideas have been badly written up by uncaring patent prosecutors who don't understand the technology they were dealing with, and don't bother to perform prior art due diligence on the patents they file, for a variety of reasons, most illegitimate. My take on patent office examination quality is mixed - examiners consistently find relevant art, but not always the most relevant art; somewhat understandable given the time-pressure circumstances in which they work. Outright chicanery by patentees is something of a rarity, though I've seen through to it in some instances. Overall, that assessment is too subtle & complex for a news story, but it is perhaps the dark underbelly of patent prosecution reality.

As to the press writing substantively about patents, whoa, who wants to read that but lawyers?! But "patent troll" is graphic and catchy. Name calling means conflict, and conflict drives drama; stop the presses, we have a news flash. If the press pointed out the silliness of the name calling, or the self-interestedness of the name callers, they would be undercutting their own story; forget that - go with the drama. The reporting press never evaluates or judges; they just report whatever they're fed. Leave the skepticism to the op-ed page, those jokers who don't have to make a living through "sources."

As to patent trolls, the sweet truth is the truth. Patents are a tradable commodity. Anyone who owns a patent has a limited-duration negative grant of monopoly which they are entitled to enforce. The ubiquitous ways that companies dodge and weave and try to weasel out of infringement, rather than negotiate, is never reported as the news, though that's the dark underbelly of patent enforcement reality. Dodging patent enforcement is too behind-the-scenes, subtle & complex, and conflict free, for the press to report as the story.

The arbiters of patents are the courts, who do make mistakes occasionally, though that accusation is evidenced fairly only by a lower court ruling being overturned by a higher court. With patents, anyway, one could think that the court system, thanks in part to its appeal process, has a splendid record when viewed holistically. It's rather amazing how well the courts handle such combined legal and technical complexity, especially considering there is no structuring attuned to handling patent cases. Note that there is zero outrage about the courts being biased or corrupt in patent rulings; only carping at the cost of litigation. The happy thought of a well-functioning court system is definitely not news, but bitching about the cost of patent litigation is. Note that patent cases are easily and consistently the most complex legal cases imaginable, hence the justified cost. But those facts are too behind-the-scenes, subtle & complex, and conflict free, for the press to report.

By contrast to another "industry", there's little outrage in the press about the massive Federal budget deficit that signifies the abject rejection of responsibility by the Republicans. Instead we have lots of coverage about Social Security being broke, without mention of who broke it, and not to mention that the hubbub is not about fixing it.

As to all those big patent issues: the patent system, software patents, patent trolls - there's no news absent the artificial stirring of controversy. But as a working journalist covering the patent beat, I'd have no choice but to occasionally grab a self-serving patent weasel and squeeze a story.

All told, in the statistical bell curve of humanity, for any business, whether press or patent attorney, people generally do the best they can in the circumstances they face, with at least one eye on what's the right thing to do. That is definitely not news.

Finally, allow the snake-chasing-its-tale observation that this posting, if readable infotainment, is only so because of reporting conflict, and generating it by a dissenting viewpoint. Ah well.