decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Mobbing with VALID EVIDENCE | 211 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Yeah, but
Authored by: stegu on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 02:01 PM EDT
It would probably be a bad idea to spam examiners
with irrelevant documents, and piling up large amounts
of relevant but superfluous submissions for one
single application would probably be improductive,
or even counterproductive as suggested above.

However, it could be very useful to use crowdsourcing
to find at least a few relevant pieces of prior art
for as many software patents as possible. As has been
demonstrated here on Groklaw, prior art can be found
with surprisingly little effort for many software patents
that have been issued, and I do not think that the
current crop of applications is of any higher quality.
(The reported increase in applications hints that
the quality is getting worse, not better.)

This could stop the worst abuses of the system, and
I'm hoping that is the purpose of this new rule.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Mobbing with VALID EVIDENCE
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 03:02 PM EDT
That is the point you seem to be wilfully missing!

Yes, if he has hundreds of "prior art" documents dumped on him, it
could be counter-productive. But if every document he examines is on-point, then
he only need look at one or two of them.

More to the point, if he says "I received 200 documents, and examined three
of them. All three are valid prior art so I rejected the patent", it sends
a very clear signal to anyone inclined to fight the rejection, that they are not
going to get very far. The Patent Officer has another 197 documents waiting in
the wings ...

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )