Here are highlights from yesterday's WSJ editorial, inadvertently ironically titled, "Patently Absurd" -

"Patents are supposed to protect intellectual property and spur innovation, and once upon a time in America they did. But like everything else the legal system touches nowadays, U.S. patent law has been hijacked so that it now operates nearly in reverse, deterring research and penalizing innovation... [T]he patent system is fast becoming a detriment to U.S. competitiveness, not to mention basic fairness. Blame the lawyers."

Hmm... maybe it's that last line that provoked an emotional response.

Dennis Crouch of Patently-O got so upset he lifted the patent logo from my Patent Hawk web site to paste on his counter-editorial, like some kind of hex sign. Matt Buchanan over at "promote the progress" reminded that attorneys serve their clients, not rampage through the courts of their own accord, and have a vested interest in a fair patent regime. Stephen Nipper of The Invent Blog seconded Matt with a nice quotation: “It is much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem.” - Malcolm Forbes. Freshly brewed Stephen Albainy-Jenei of Patent Baristas urged "to be careful what you wish for," that the major beneficiaries of the current patent regime are large corporations, the target clientele for WSJ.

The WSJ editorial did hit one note of note -  

"The Patent Office grants patents on the basis of a "preponderance of evidence" that the invention merits a patent. But it takes "clear and convincing evidence," a higher standard, to overturn them once granted."

If you don't like that, blame Congress and the courts. But maybe consider there's some logic behind the differential in evidence standards with regard to presumption of patent validity - the patent office should be granting well-vetted patents. If not, blame the patent office.