Skip to main content

Patent Peer Processing

Finally, some good news about technology patents. We have known of the problems with the system for a long time, and now that things are starting to turn around, the burden is on the people to take the power being given them and make a difference and show that this works.

I am calling on everyone who has the slightest time and knowledge to contribute to this new system, because the results affect you just as much as the rest of us. That includes all non-US citizens, because we do live in an global village, and anything anywhere can affect everyone everywhere.

We need to make sure the new system is setup in a way that we can consume and digest the information in the same way we filter, rank, pass, and project information around the blogosphere today. That means ensuring that feeds are setup from the PTO, establishing aggregators, tagging conventions, and working toward trusted patent review bloggers. We can use the same tools we have been employeeing to digest insane am0unts of our own information and apply all of that to locating the best, worst, and silliest of claims by the patenters.

It might be great that any individual can read, review, research, and respond to the patents for the PTO to utilize in their decisions, but there is only so much an individual can do, even when there are many such individuals. When we turn all of us individuals into a group, a community, a patent chomping machine, and we can do something that is actually bettering for the entire world.

Comments

Anonymous said…
So, because the USPTO isn't competent enough to do this itself, or maybe they don't get enough funding to do it properly, they now try to force everybody else to do their work for free?

If they want experts they should pay them, and if that's not financially possible, then that means those patents aren't worth enough to exist in the first place.

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…