About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« USPTO News: Patent Prosecution Highway Extended to IP Australia | Main | Department of Commerce Sends Senators Second Letter on Patent Reform Bill »

April 02, 2008


How surprising that the "paper of record" had a biased, unresearched article. Must be the first time that has happened.

You'd think the mention of "Bill Gates" as an inventor would have failed the laugh test with the editors. Bill Gates' MO has always been to steal the creative works of others, not to innovate. Microsoft is not exactly known for being respectful of inventors or of patent rights.

Will you be submitting this post as a Letter to the Editor?

Dear Sean:

I have submitted these in the past, to no effect. I don't waste my time.

I also think it humorous that Bill Gates is touted as an inventor, but on the other hand his Pirate King style is the Times' point: it isn't the "true" inventor that makes the commercial product. I just think that he is an exception (and exceptional) example, so I didn't go down that road.

Thanks for the comment.


I urge you to keep submitting, as letters or perhaps op eds to the Tims and other good papers. There is a real need for such information to be published to counter the anti-patent press.

Do you think the anti-patent stance of the business press is related to advertising dollars received from CPF companies?

Dear Anon Agent:

Perhaps in part, but I think it is enough that they are a big company that wants to do what it wants to do without having to worry about intellectual property rights of others including their reporters, contributors, etc.

Thanks for the comment.


The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29