Bessen and Meurer are on, with text: Bessen and Meurer did everyone a favour by raising difficult issues and forcing the patent community to think about how its world is perceived outside the bubble. It is not evident that the Bessen/Meurer view "forced" the patent community to do anything, nor is it evident that the Bessen/Meurer view is that "perceived outside the bubble." The people who were talking about the work were mainly other academics. See IPFrontline.
James Malackowski got on, with text about his article during 2008 which suggested that, contrary to the opinion of many members of the US patent bar, patent quality at the USPTO is actually on the rise.
First, the article (published in a mag of the LES) said: quality has either remained steady or has improved somewhat over the previous five years. [The basis for this was in number of citations and words per claim, two items not related to "quality", which relates to whether issued claims conform to statutory requirements.]
Second, who are the "many members" of the patent bar who believed in the patent quality issues raised by Quillen and Webster? Can you provide names, Joff?
***Wild uses "bubble" again in stating:
I have never been convinced that having an insider from the patent profession at the top of a patent office is necessarily a good thing. To my mind, while it is always important to listen carefully to the opinions of the patent bar, it is important to remember that it is not only patent attorneys that have a stake in the patent system. What works best for attorneys may not always be what works best for society. The patent office, therefore, should not be the sole preserve of the patent profession. Often, in fact, it could be that someone whose background is from outside the bubble may have a more rounded perspective than someone who has spent all of his or her professional life inside it. On top of this, as patents become more of a political hot potato, there are significant risks in having an insider in charge of decision making.
Joff Wild seems to think patent attorneys will advocate "what works best for attorneys." Yet, a number of patent attorneys argued against oppositions, even though oppositions would have been a lucrative field. Quo vadis, Joff?