Sewell preaches:

The U.S. patent system is beginning to show its age; outpaced by the swift evolution of technology and commerce, it increasingly favors speculators over innovators, impeding innovation and economic growth.

The Patent Reform Act of 2007 responds to the need for comprehensive patent reform that protects the rights of inventors while eliminating the incentives that encourage speculators to game the system.

Sewell swills a pseudo-"reformer" litany of: junk patents, litigation costs, damages "amok," and shell corporations used for venue picking. Readers of the Patent Prospector know better - take the proposed damages apportionment issue, for example: June 13, 2007 & May 11, 2007. As to slamming shell corporations, let's enjoy a touch of hypocrisy: in 1998, Intel reportedly bought and used a Cayman Islands shell company as a tactic to fend off patent infringement.

One nice touch is Sewell claiming that the Supreme Court, patent ignoramus maximus, is on his side.

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken four patent cases over the past year, an astonishingly high number, and in all four of those cases it decisively ruled in favor of those advocating reform. "Gobbledygook," "worse than meaningless" and "retards progress" are just a few phrases used by justices recently to describe some key patent standards.

On that, at least, he may be right. In SCOTUS KSR oral arguments, Justice Scalia labeled the "teaching, suggestion, motivation" test, the previous long-standing CAFC standard for determining obviousness, derived from Supreme Court rulings, as "gobbledygook. It really is, it's irrational." So the Supreme Court in its KSR ruling birthed this crystal-clear standard of clarity for determining obviousness:

One of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims.

Circular logic for applying hindsight; gobbledygook indeed.