[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Would CAM not be useful in the discovery process to
ensure that appropriate and necessary interrogative
transactions are occurring?
IOW, I might not use it to transact business with
the Patent Office given an uncontested patent. But
there are rules of order with respect to documents
that have to be submitted given the comment period,
so I might want notifications and have the means
to determine appropriate responses. It could save
money spent on patent attorneys. Where one finds a
a lawyer, one finds a context.
<futureProof>
XML: tech that devolved from tech designed by a
lawyer to help other lawyers into a tech that obsoletes
lawyers.
</futureProof>
len
From: Cox, Bruce [mailto:Bruce.Cox@USPTO.GOV]
In this context, I think CAM is not appropriate. Published patent
documents are not dynamic, there are no transactions between just
discovered business partners, so there is no ambiguity of context. The
content validation mechanism of CAM appears to be mostly a framework for
local customization, which I think would not justify the overhead of CAM
for this purpose.
|
