Journalists still don't understand patents

Here's yet another article (this one from CNet) that demonstrates that the average journalist doesn't know anything about patents, yet insists on writing about them with authority. The key problem here is the differentiation between a published patent application and an issued patent. The article treats published applications as if they were issued patents.

A published patent application is not necessarily the final form of a filed patent application (and most often is not, since the publication is generally made before prosecution begins and the claims are amended). The big difference is that a published patent application is interesting reading material, but has little value unless the application ultimately issues as a patent (the notice provisions and prior art value of the publication notwithstanding). An issued patent carries legal weight, based on the scope of the claims (the dense text at the end of a patent that defies normal grammatical rules).

It would be refreshing to see someone get it right. Or at least show some initiative to learn about the subject matter on which they write.