While that was entertaining and accurate at a high level, John Oliver repeats the same mistakes other media outlets make regarding the finer points of this issue:

1. He references the roundly debunked "Patent Trolls cost X trillion dollars" study and accepts it as fact.

2. He calls ED Texas "plaintiff friendly", which it hasn't been for a while (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1597919) - these days it's popular because of other factors.

3. He shows a video clip of that M-CAM guy, who's famous for claiming there's a "patent on toast" (there's no such thing) in that NPR episode on patent trolls. Which, BTW, had journalism worse than this clip. M-CAM is a laughingstock of the IP licensing world as they appear to have no idea how patents really work.

4. The whole "trial lawyers killed patent reform" thing is a red herring if you just stop a second to think about it. As Oliver himself says a few minutes earlier, the whole patent troll business model is avoiding trials by settling for less than the cost of a lawsuit. In fact 97% of patent lawsuits, patent troll or otherwise, settle without trial. Statistically, trial lawyers have very little skin in the game. I don't know what really killed this patent reform bill (my guess is the pharma lobby), but I'm really curious why people decided to blame the trial lawyers.