fe-51393 This is a must watch documentary that shows you the corrupt state of the American patent system.It shows how patent trolls and often corrupt lawyers/judges milk the system, to force helpless victims out of a livelihood.I sincerely hope that the Congress will pass a bill that puts an end to this gross injustice.

ImNotFromEarth Usually fake ratings try to push the overall score higher for a crappy movie, but it's opposite this time. The one star reviewer has only reviewed one movie in his entire existence, he seems to have created an account for the sole purpose of giving this movie the lowest rating possible, and spent a lot of time with it, it's almost as if that person has a vested interest in what he's doing.If you've heard of the faulty patent system and wondered what that's all about, this movie spells it out plainly, and doesn't sugar coat anything.

malacite-98560 This I found to be a really good amateur documentary. It highlights the problems of the capitalist system very clearly. Lawyers and the legal system squeezing money from normal businesses trying to create new innovative products that ultimately help society. A must watch for everyone!

aecolu It doesn't seem the show had much research. It is true patent trolls are a big issue and it is something that needs to be addressed. The key issue is when the patent office gives an allowance to a patent application that should not have been allowed. Patent claims must be novel and not obvious. The other problem is the burden of the people who are being sued in being the ones that need to show the invalidity of the patents.The show begins with the idea of shoe polishing as a patent being granted and the argument the show gives is that there is no patent on it. This is not true. If you can find shoe polishing in any literature whether it'd be novels, movies, or a news article then the patent claim fails the test and a patent cannot be granted.The show later then talks about the host being sued and shows a red box of the preamble of a claim and argues that's what the company suing him owns in their patent and it's so basic. A preamble is not the property of the person holding the patent, it is in fact prior art, it is what follows the preamble that is the property of the patent holder. The show misdirects viewers by showing you something that obviously shouldn't have received a patent, and which it wasn't. The red box are did not get patented, it is the following paragraphs after the word "comprising".Then the show goes on to US 6370535 and says they own the patent to "red box area" once again, rather than the claim. A look up of the patent and the independent claim you see it is much more specific than what the show's host claims. The host shows a basic simplified example of the patent and claims they own the right to anything of such, but when really they own the right to something much more specific.Throughout the show they argue patents are bad that you shouldn't be able to own an idea. This is a terrible notion. Lots of start-ups would be in danger of big companies simply copying their idea and squeezing them out if it was not for patents. The problem is frivolous patents.This show talks about an important problem in America, but I cannot give it more than 4 out of 10 because this is more like an YouTube rant by someone getting sued rather than an actual documentary that is well researched and well debated. It is heavily one-sided and misrepresented. In order to win the debate they present frivolous patents to be ridiculous frivolous by using red-boxes to highlight areas of more basic ideas that the patent holder does not own the right to, in an attempt the show shows the incompetency of the patent office. If the show had been true and shown actual patent claims and not just highlighting the preamble they will find it not as easy in debating whether the idea is novel or not, especially since a lot of these patents are almost 20 years old and soon to be expired.In another example the show talks about US 7778664, and first misdirects the viewers into thinking the patent was filed for in 2010 by focusing on the said date, when the date of filing is 2001. Secondly the host claims the patent gave the person claim over the rights to a telephone. When in reality this is a patent claim with priority in 2001 for a digital phone that you can make a video call with that also shows an image of yourself during the video call as well as blocks incoming calls of anyone on a blocked list. But the host claims the patent gave the inventor the rights to telephones in general, and that this happened in 2010.