Right, I didn't mean to imply that he's a practicing lawyer (since he's clearly a writer and editor for This Is My Next/Verge, but it was foolish of me to expect everyone else to know that) or that he was a patent lawyer.

What I meant by that part of the comment is that from what I've heard and read by him, he seems so thoroughly entrenched in his perspective as a lawyer that the system in place is just how it is, that he has trouble even understanding systemic criticism of the system itself.

And my reading of the main objective you attribute to him isn't so much to introduce the complexity of the situations so much as to tell people to quit arguing about things that they're not experts on. Leave it to the lawyers in other words.

I think that's a fair sentiment to a degree. People definitely do seem to join one camp or another based on very simplistic versions of arguments, with very shallow understanding of the subjects at hand. But it doesn't seem useful to me to tell people to stop doing that. What seems more useful to me is try to educate people on the complexities of the issue so that you can elevate the people who are amenable to education. Ignore the others.

It's perfectly valid to tell stupid people that they're being stupid. But does it add anything meaningful to the conversation?

I just don't see Nilay ever addressing the actual, valid, fundamental criticisms of the patent system.