> The notion that Albright is a "patent troll" friend is incorrect. [...]
There's the problem of possibly being too friendly towards patent trolls. But there's also the problem of supporting and encouraging frivolous patent litigation overall.
Patent lawyers (and apparently now judges) don't really care who wins. Their business thrives if there's simply more litigation around patents. They'll see companies file more patents, need more consultation, and work on more cases.
In that light, whether Mr Albright worked for either side doesn't really make a difference. The point is that his specialization is set to gain from more litigation. More litigation comes from more patent trolls, so questions regarding the impartiality are appropriate.
I have personal experience with patent trolls. I had a patent lawsuit filed against my company in Texas (we are entirely based in California) that was very distracting and slowed down our innovation. What was the lawsuit over? A BS patent that was used in dozens of other lawsuits claiming ownership over the process of selling things online. Patents should be completely eliminated, all they are is an artificial restriction on trade that leaves bad monopolies in place. If we aren't going to ban patents, we should at least add very heavy penalties on BS patents and patent trolls to discourage the worst abuses that have become commonplace. And judges like Albright should be disbarred and possibly even criminally prosecuted.
Can we take this a step back? Why do you feel it needs protection? Innovation thrives in places that have little patent enforcement and thrived long before patents became a thing.
There's the problem of possibly being too friendly towards patent trolls. But there's also the problem of supporting and encouraging frivolous patent litigation overall.
Patent lawyers (and apparently now judges) don't really care who wins. Their business thrives if there's simply more litigation around patents. They'll see companies file more patents, need more consultation, and work on more cases.
In that light, whether Mr Albright worked for either side doesn't really make a difference. The point is that his specialization is set to gain from more litigation. More litigation comes from more patent trolls, so questions regarding the impartiality are appropriate.