The Patent Office is “adjusting” to a Supreme Court ruling by ignoring it
I like the EFF&#x27;s mission, but I find many of the EFF&#x27;s posts like this to be awful and quite propaganda-like in style. They present an issue and spend time talking about how it&#x27;s bad, provoking an emotional response of anger or righteous indignation, and leave out the most important details.<p>In this case, the USPTO released new guidance on how reviewers should consider the Supereme Court&#x27;s <i>Alice</i> decision. EFF thinks this guidance is bad. They have metrics and talking points. But the EFF fail&#x27;s to deliver the single most important information:<p><i>What did the new guidance say!</i> -- EFF is silent on this.<p>WHY? I think in this case it&#x27;s because the EFF doesn&#x27;t like software patents at all. They know much of their audience feels the same way. So they don&#x27;t care about actually explaining what the new  guidance says-- All they care about is presenting metrics about increased software patent grants that show how bad the new policy <i>must</i> be, because it&#x27;s doing what the EFF hates: granting more software patents. I find it emotionally manipulative, and the more time goes on the more I avoid their articles.<p><i>They used to be better than this.</i>