Patent attorney and pro-patent shill Dale Halling writes: “According to US Patent and Trademark (USPTO) Power Point presentation the allowance rate has again fallen to 41% by mid year 2009. This continues the sad trend of falling allowance rates that started in 2002.”
Why is it a “sad trend”? What if there are “too many” “poor quality” patents being issued, and fewer junk patents are being allowed?
Stephan Kinsella is a libertarian writer and patent attorney in Houston, Texas. He has published widely on various areas of libertarian legal theory and on legal topics such as intellectual property law and international law. His publications include Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Papinian Press, 2023), Against Intellectual Property (Mises Institute, 2008), and International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide (Oxford, 2020).
The Libertarian Standard (TLS)
© 2012-2024 StephanKinsella.com 
To the extent possible under law, Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to material on this Site, unless indicated otherwise. In the event the CC0 license is unenforceable a 
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.
Dear Mr. Kinsella, I have already dispelled the low patent quality myth – see http://hallingblog.com/2009/08/18/patent-quality-myth/.
Since you believe that there should not be a patent system at all, you opinion cannot be considered objective on this issue.
Halling: I am against the patent system, despite my financial interest to the contrary, because I’m objective.
To the contrary: since you benefit financially from the patent system and are merely a shill for it (given the paucity of your arguments combined with your audacity of marching ahead, despite lack of intellectual ammunition), I think it’s clear who is biased here.
Dear Mr. Kinsella, I have provided civil comments. I have answered you objections with facts and reason. But, you always respond by name calling and vague accusations. It makes me wonder whether you are interested in the truth or just interested in winning a discussion.
Mr. Halling, my accusations are not vague in the slightest. I believe you are intellectually unequipped to debate these matters in a sophisticated way. I don’t mean this personally, but that is my opinion, based on reading your comments. I think there is a reason for this–the fallacious scientism that engineers are steeped in, and which most unthinkingly accept. I do not think you understand economics, or how to argue properly for value-related propositions or norms without conflating it with causal-factual matters.
In fact, to be honest, I do not think you or Quinn are interested in truth at all. I could be wrong–but in this case, it just means you have very dull minds. I don’t think you do, so think it more likely that you don’t care about the truth and are just arguing li
I do not think you or Quinn are interested in truth at all. I could be wrong–but in this case, it just means you have very dull minds. I don’t think you do, so think it more likely that you don’t care about the truth and are just arguing li