A slanted journalistic piece that doesn't tell the other side-- in particular, the inventor. Instead of finding one, the article says they found it extremely difficult. (Surely, the news broadcasters can find some inventor's view.) Where's the other side of the story?

The only ones it found were inventors who said they couldn't understand the dumb legal language of the claims, and thus, said all was stupid. Obviously, someone is stupid, and the news team could have found many inventors who did understand the language. Why is such slanted journalistic article seen as having truthful?

If the other side isn't presented, I'm always suspicious whether the story has integrity rather than sensationalism.