[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
That's a good point. The patent examiner should have
access to research and commentary. I believe precedents
can be found for that. OTOHIANAL.
The patent process is a service. One of the reasons for
the proliferation of bad patents was a change that made
them responsible for being self-supporting. As a self-
supporting service, they should thrive on quality as
well as quantity. If the use of the online resources
makes them able to process patents faster, they can
do better business faster and cheaper.
An ontologically associative and extensible system
should work nicely.
len
From: Alan Gutierrez [mailto:alan-xml-dev@engrm.com]
It seems a pity that third parties cannot be consulted, when you
imagine that you are the third party they would consult.
To make research available to the USPTO as a passive resource
might be something that is acceptable legally, but then wouldn't
we be setting up a battle between PR departments, politicizing
the patent approval process?
Wouldn't a software monlith aruge effectively along the lines
of:
We spend x billion a year on research and development. How can
you tell us that our application approval pivots on the consesus
of a newsgroup.
|
