The Patent Office is “adjusting” to a Supreme Court ruling by ignoring it
I like the EFF's mission, but I find many of the EFF's posts like this to be awful and quite propaganda-like in style. They present an issue and spend time talking about how it'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's <i>Alice</i> decision. EFF thinks this guidance is bad. They have metrics and talking points. But the EFF fail'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's because the EFF doesn't like software patents at all. They know much of their audience feels the same way. So they don'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'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>