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

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

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…