« Peer to Patent Ranked #133 on Wikio.com | Main | Peer-to-Patent Releases First Anniversary Report »


david osimo

Many thanks, I would like to add just a clarification.
The conference was not ours, but organised by the European Commission and the Government of Portugal, then president of the European Union.
Secondly, we just released a report on the tutorial, where Peer-to-patent features prominently. You can find it on the same website.
Thanks and congratulations for your work.

John Segal


I just found this web site that lets you download patents as PDF files for free. Its http://www.patentretriever.com/

Thought I'd share this little gem with those that are interested.


The Mad Prosecutor

With all due respect to those who undoubtedly worked very hard on this project, I guess I will be the voice of reason, contrary to all the cheerleading. To be perfectly clear, I never thought that the Peer-to-Patent system was a good system, and never thought that the system would be successful. It's success is underwhelming, and not at all contrary to my expecations.

With respect to applications reviewed since January 2008, the average application:
- cites 3 prior art references;
- includes 1 annotation; and
- generated 3 comments.
This is hardly the flood of useful information that proponents imply Peer-to-Patent is providing to the Examiners.

If we take the results, and remove a "high" and a "low" value, the results are even more dismal. Since the beginning of 2008, the average application:
- cites 2 references;
- includes 0 annotations; and
- generated 1 comment.

There are a number of "average" applications ready to expire within the next few weeks.

I could go through and point out how virtually all the "discussions" are absolutely useless, purporting to present unsupported conclusions ("this is obvious," "IBM needs to better define the invention," "HP needs to show us the real invention")without any factual support, but what would be the point? The above goes without saying.

It should be clear to all those involved that patent examination is not an easy (or exciting, or, in many cases, even interesting) job - it requires a real understanding not only of technology but also law. For this reason, the public is not, and really never will be, effective in searching prior art.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      


  • OneWebDay

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner