On occasion I have the chance to do what I really dig- running some new chemistry with the stereo cranked up high. It can be Joe Green (Verde), Stevie Ray Vaughn, Eric Clapton, or Prairie Home Companion- I don’t care. Th’ Gaussling does love the blues. Opera, surprisingly, is a recent taste.
One circumstance when I can’t listen to tunes is when I’m reading patents- I need all of the focus I can get. I do have an unhealthy interest in patents and patent law. If you are so afflicted, I would recommend visiting the websites of a few law schools like George Mason University Law School. I would also highly recommend the website Patently-O. The size of the patent law business is amazing. And make no mistake, it is a business.
Anyway, back to the lab. I spent today doing what turned out to be a fairly tight fractional distillation. Of course, this gave me an excuse to do GCMS. I love to work out fragmentation patterns in a pathetic effort to understand the side products. A long time ago I invested in McLafferty’s book on mass spec and it was a good investment. A large number of folks place heavy reliance on the mass spec library on the computer. If you’re bringing new materials to market, this resource may be of little value.
After a day of watching product drip, drip, drip, I am decompressing with a glass of Old Chubb. Pretty good stuff.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
It’s almost impossible for the non-agent or attorney to comprehend the IP value of a patent. As technical references they’re almost worthless (since you can claim an almost infinite number of variations on your invention.) They also leave out info that would be easily understood by ‘one skilled in the art’. But those pesky details (ever try to saponify a sterically hindered ester? looks easy on paper…right)), are the heart of scientific papers. Coupled with the fact the examiner turn over at the USPTO is 50% per year, patents are being churned out that arent worth the paper they’re printed on.
And of course you need to know the case law to figure our how common words will be interpreted by not only the examiner, but also the court of appeals during infringement.
Yes, reading a patent is hazardous to your scientific health. Keep your habit to no more than one or two per week. If you just read the abstract it may not damage you too much.
I have to agree with your sentiment. I’d also add that the best way to understand the true meaning of patents is to spend some time working with a patent attorney. It is most enlightening to listen to how a patent attorney approaches a patent in terms of validity and how they speculate as to what the claims actually mean. What I have learned is that the claims only mean what a judge decides they mean. Until a patent has been challenged in court, you have no idea of what is enforceable or valid. The “Bluff Value” of a patent is perhaps its main benefit. It is like a scare crow- it keeps the opportunistic crows away.