I think this is basically right, though I want to point out that this is not the same as self interest or corruption -- it's an instance of institutional bias.

I think this is basically right, though I want to point out that this is not the same as self interest or corruption -- it's an instance of institutional bias. If I'm understanding you correctly, your argument (which I agree with) is that judges from the backgrounds that you list have spent years steeping in a certain intellectual environment where, simplistically, everyone is a patent maximalist (or, similarly, where nobody questions the fundamentals of the patent regime). They won't immediately (if ever) lose this mindset once they're appointed to the bench. The only reason this distinction matters, I suppose, is that it is fairer to the judges themselves than calling them "corrupt" or "self-interested." It's not the judges' fault if they have worked at patent firms for 30 years before they're appointed. It's the fault of the people appointing them for not selecting from a more intellectually diverse set of candidates.