navigating the patent maze

Yesterday while browsing new IP-related blogs, I came across one from the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley.  Someone had written a posting about the Nap Hal patent being revoked, but had mostly just parroted the Greenpeace press release. 

Is this good journalism?  I couldn’t help myself and left a comment to the effect that the author ought to check the facts first before posting.  Unfortunately patent news, whether in blogs like the UC Berkeley one or in newspapers, is too often factually incorrect — e.g., headlines of ‘Microsoft patent overturned in reexamination’ when all that happened was a first rejection by the US Patent Office.  I suppose the lousy reporting is in part impetous for my own blog.  As other patent lawyer bloggers know posting takes a lot of effort and time; history needs to be researched, facts need to be verified, analysis needs to be carefully thought through.  Journalists have a code of ethics (I thought) — but probably there is no teeth to it.  I propose that all of us patent bloggers send comments to journalists who mis-report IP news so that accurate reporting becomes the norm.