Patents are government grants designed to encourage investment in and disclosure of innovation. The fact that patent owners are trying to conceal their identities from the Patent Office is a sign the patent system is not working as intended. Thankfully, judges like Judge Connolly (among others) are not permitting them to use publicly-funded courts to facilitate covert schemes.

The Patent Office requested comments on important procedures regarding patent eligibility and review of Patent and Trial Appeal Board decisions. Public interest groups responded by urging the procedures to be changed to restore conformity with the spirit and letter of the law as well as the public’s interest in a patent system that fairly and effectively promotes innovation for all.

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division is supposed to protect Americans from schemes that drive prices up and competition down. Unfortunately, the Division’s former head, Makan Delrahim, did the opposite, protecting anticompetitive conduct from meaningful scrutiny and disregarding concerns about consumer harm. One glaring example is the (absurdly favorable) business review letter he issued regarding a patent licensing pool administered by Avanci.

The patent system is supposed to make technology better and more accessible. Patents that broadly cover computer security standards do the opposite. Thankfully, Internet users, web developers, and security researchers are safe from one patent assertion entity that had threatened public access to essential security technology.

This week a panel of experts came together to discuss the public’s interest in patent law. Here are three takeaways.