Another law review faux pas?
A recent law review article states (in a footnote, where else?) that the patent grant rate at the USPTO has increased 80% in the last ten years.
Does anybody believe this to be true?
Forget about Laurence Tribe and plagiarism (which is mostly forgotten anyway) and start worrying about the continued presence of flagrant falsities in law reviews that seem to escape the attention of student editors.
**FOLLOWUP**
In case anyone was interested, the statement in the law review was totally false. It was both quantitatively and qualitatively incorrect.
The allowance rate has steadily declined since 1999 where it was at 70.8%. In 2004, it was 62.5%, and it looks like it is dropping this year (likely in the high fifties). Ten years ago (1996), it was at 66.8%.
Thus, the patent grant rate has NOT INCREASED 80% in the last ten years. IT HAS DECREASED.
Where are the cite checkers for law reviews? Do cite checkers have the ability to read? Do cite checkers have the ability to think?
Does anybody believe this to be true?
Forget about Laurence Tribe and plagiarism (which is mostly forgotten anyway) and start worrying about the continued presence of flagrant falsities in law reviews that seem to escape the attention of student editors.
**FOLLOWUP**
In case anyone was interested, the statement in the law review was totally false. It was both quantitatively and qualitatively incorrect.
The allowance rate has steadily declined since 1999 where it was at 70.8%. In 2004, it was 62.5%, and it looks like it is dropping this year (likely in the high fifties). Ten years ago (1996), it was at 66.8%.
Thus, the patent grant rate has NOT INCREASED 80% in the last ten years. IT HAS DECREASED.
Where are the cite checkers for law reviews? Do cite checkers have the ability to read? Do cite checkers have the ability to think?
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home