I always find "watch this documentary" to be pointless. If the person's already convinced that patent abuse is bad, they don't need to watch a 2 hour video to reconfirm their beliefs. If the person is sitting on the fence or not convinced, there are better ways to provide information to them than getting them to stare at a screen for 2 hours.

If that was the only solution presented I would agree, but in an online forum with several other answers someone providing an overly detailed source is handy. Most people may not be interested, but some might be.

I disagree with your general sentiment. The people here reading these comments may be on the fence. Maybe they're leaning one way or another. Maybe they need some more convincing. Someone who wants to learn more can benefit greatly from a documentary or a good article on the subject. And these comments don't just exist in this moment. They will be available in search for a long time to come.

I'm not sure a movie called "The patent scam" is going to be seen as an unbiased, convincing source by any fence sitter.

Why does it has to be unbiased?

Alas, there's no such thing as unbiased.

>Alas, there's no such thing as unbiased.

So basically, neutrality nihilism? ie. "every source is biased so it doesn't matter whether I'm getting my climate change facts from the IPCC or InfoWars".

No. It's more along the lines of:

It doesn't make sense to give conspiracy theorists any space for the sake of neutrality.

I agree with this.

But this is different to conspiracy theorists. There is a range of reasonable, good faith positions to take on this issue (eg, some on this discussion advocate the abolishment of copyright - not just patents - which is a position many in the software industry would disagree with).