> This is basically "pretty please." If something is uncomfortable it's not "material to patentability" according to corporate patent people. If those "corpora

> This is basically "pretty please." If something is uncomfortable it's not "material to patentability" according to corporate patent people. If those "corporate patent people" are lawyers, they're betting their law licenses: Intentional withholding of material information can result in the patent's being held unenforceable for that reason alone [0], and quite possibly temporary- or permanent disbarment for any patent attorney found to have engaged in such misconduct. [1] [0] See, e.g., https://casetext.com/case/deep-fix-llc-v-marine-well-containment-co-4 https://casetext.com/case/deep-fix-llc-v-marine-well-contain..., in which a highly-regarded federal district judge in Houston held that a patent attorney had intentionally withheld material information from the patent examiner; the case is discussed at https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/02/26/inequitable-conduct-lives-patent-practitioners-beware/id=119323/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/02/26/inequitable-conduct-li... As another example in which patent attorneys were likewise held to have engaged in inequitable conduct, see https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4550519350745193929 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=455051935074519... [1] See generally the discussion in an amicus brief (search the document for "disbar), at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1616/52679/20180709165540481_17-1616%20tsac%20Seven.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1616/52679/2018... (the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, as discussed at https://www.patentdocs.org/2018/10/supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in-regeneron-pharmaceuticals-v-merus-.html https://www.patentdocs.org/2018/10/supreme-court-denies-cert...)