Hypocrites.

I make this countercharge: It's somewhat incongruous for a patent system to be opining on a[n internet] bookseller. When the patent office was started, the reviewers understood what they were granting patents on. That is clearly no longer the case; witness the granting of a patent for a device to communicate faster then the speed of light. Mr. Ellis demands knowlege of the subject matter if we are to criticize him and the patent system, yet at the same time implies that he has every right to enforce a patent system on us (as I count myself an internet developer, though not a great one) that is absolutely incapable of meeting the same criterion with regard to the Internet.

"It's somewhat incongruous for a bookseller to be opining on the patent system," said William T. Ellis, a partner in the Washington office of Foley & Lardner.

Or, my favorite accusation,

The Patent Office issued a terse one-paragraph response to the Bezos letter, saying, "We believe the existing patent law works very well for all technologies."

Or try this quote on:

Very perceptive, Mr. Wolmsley, except I think you can drop the word "almost".

On Monday morning, Herbert P. Wolmsley, executive director of Washington-based Intellectual Property Owners Association, began making calls to journalists, condemning the Gleick piece in the Sunday magazine for "almost calling into question the principles of the patent system as a whole."