[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Scott Parnell wrote:
>Anyone remember BountyQuest?
Of course... But, I consider BountyQuest to be an
excellent example of thinking about the process in the wrong
way. BountyQuest only sought very specific "on all points"
prior-art. In fact, there were many who complained to them
that they had identified prior-art that BountyQuest refused
to reward because it was more general than the specific
claims they were trying to defeat.
BountyQuest had the right idea -- actively seek ways to
invalidate bad claims, but the wrong approach and way of
thinking about the problem. They fell into the lawyers trap
of insisting on "on all points" prior-art while avoiding the
opportunities to strengthen the system by establishing the
general principles and boundaries of what is innovative. They
sought to focus on just the specific momentary and short-
sighted interests of their clients while ignoring the
admittedly harder process of ensuring long-term protection
against specious claims.
bob wyman
|
