The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) is one of the seven scientific institutes of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC). Recently, its 4th Ministerial eGovernment Conference took place. A pdf of one of the presentations, "Web 2.0 for eGovernment" is available for download at http://www.jrc.es/docs/tutorial.pdf.
The report highlights the importance of public participation and transparency in administrative operations. It goes on to analyze current efforts in the public sector, private sector, and in government. Peer to Patent is profiled for its efforts to reduce administrative backlog and help the government make better informed decisions.
It is reassuring to see powerful collaborative tools such as Peer to Patent influencing governments around the world. Participation through feedback, petitioning, and direct communication all lead to a more transparent and efficient government. Harnessing ubiquitous web 2.0 technologies can make these goals a reality.
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.
Posted by: david osimo | May 30, 2008 at 03:56 AM
Hi,
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.
John
Posted by: John Segal | June 01, 2008 at 07:58 AM
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.
Posted by: The Mad Prosecutor | June 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM