Posted by Greg McKallagat on Fri, Sep 03, 2010 @ 01:30 PM
Researcher Mikk Putk (mikkp) joins Article One from his native land of Estonia. Mikk has an abundance of experience in the patent field and specifically with patent research. Mikk granted Article One the following interview in which he recounts his experience with AOP and offers some great advice regarding education materials and new research tools.
Q. How did you first learn about Article One?
Mikk: I’m not sure, but as a passionate patent information searcher I like to be in touch with latest developments in our business. So, I guess I discovered Article One via some internet news.
Q. Where do you live?
Mikk: I live in Estonia and I’m from our capital Tallinn.
Q. What, if any, background do you have in patent research or research in general?
Mikk: About 8 years in the patent field and patent research. For the last 3-4 years I have mainly focused in patent research and consulting for Estonian technology companies and R&D projects.
Q. What is your profession?
Mikk: I’m a registered Estonian patent attorney.
Q. What is your education background?
Mikk: I have a BSc in material science and a master degree in entrepreneurship and technology management.
Q. Please explain your expertise which you find most relevant to your work with Article One?
Mikk: Article One is a wonderful community that helps to think indifferent ways than a patent attorney or a regular patent researcher. As a patent attorney, I need to find the newest prior art for claim drafting or in my R&D projects I need to describe the project related to the latest patent publications. When working with Article One cases, the researcher must think the opposite way. It’s much harder to find The Oldest, The First prior art. It’s very interesting and also fun – Can I find it?
Q. What do you like best about being an Article One Researcher?
Mikk: Article One Researchers are very friendly and it’s interesting to share information and experiences in the Community forum. Every new case is interesting, but the best…maybe is that I can develop my patent searching skills and learn new effective ways to search prior art.
Q. Do you know of any good patent research educational texts, resources or websites?
Mikk: I think there are lots of good educational resources. But personally I have found as a must read:
1) Information sources in patents, By Stephen R. Adams
2) Patent searching: tools & techniques, By David Hunt, Long Nguyen, Matthew Rodgers
Additionally, different web resources like PIUG Wiki, the Intellogist Forum, European Patent Office website, etc.
It is also possible to find a lot of useful references from social networks (LinkedIn groups, Twitter).
As a patent research tool and information resource, what I like to use myself is my own search toolbar. Originally I named it IPE Patent Search Toolbar, but lately it has become something much more or just IPE Search Toolbar, because I have added lot of new features (patent and other IP related information feeds, non-patent search fields, trademark search fields, etc). It’s a small browser add-on and helps me to save time in my every day patent searches.
Q. Which Study so far have you most enjoyed researching?
Mikk: Good question J I think TS584 regarding portable electronic device with a touch-sensitive screen ("touchpad") control system. This is something really tough
Q. How do you choose which studies you participate in?
Mikk: I read the introduction and patents asserted in a patent litigation. But mostly I just pick out one and start working with it. If I find that it’s not my case, I’ll take next one and return later to previous one or just leave it for a while to wait.
Q. Which research tools do you frequently use?
Mikk: At my everyday work – Delphion and my toolbar (included tens of different free search tools).
Q. What is your primary language?
Mikk: My mother tongue is Estonian and working language is English mostly.
Q. In which language(s) do you conduct your research?
Mikk: In English and I use machine translation tools
Q. Do you conduct research in any non-English databases?
Mikk: Yes, in national patent databases.
Q. What advice would you give to a new AOP Researcher researching his/her first Article One Study?
Mikk: Be curious and creative. Keep your eyes open. If you don’t find anything or the right answer, try to think of other ways or try some other search tool. Use different resources and search criteria. And if you still can’t find anything, don’t worry – take a brake and return later. Also use the Article One Forum for Researchers advice.
Q. What would you say to somebody who was considering becoming an Article One Researcher?
Mikk: Try it!
Are you a Researcher who wants to be featured in the Article One blog and newsletter? Click Here
Posted by Greg McKallagat on Wed, Sep 01, 2010 @ 11:07 AM
Article One Partners hosts its first webinar for the AOP community. Join Cheryl Milone (CEO and Founder), Shane Blackman (Community Ambassador), and Greg McKallagat (Community Development) as they discuss the latest developments in Article One. Learn more about the community forum, the new Shared Reward Compensation Plan, and other initiatives planned for the AOP Researchers. Article One’s Community Square is the first in a series of regular open calls where AOP and the Researchers can freely discuss their views about the plans and issues affecting the community.
Community Square is on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 at 11:00 AM EDT. Register here to receive the login details for the webinar.
Posted by Greg McKallagat on Mon, Aug 30, 2010 @ 02:52 PM
Article One would like to congratulate and announce the 4 selected AOP Community Leaders!
Ddenim, Engr009, Phanwy, and Sedulous have been selected to the role of AOP Community Leader for which they will be leading the Article One Community through the Community Forum. The AOP Community Leaders are all extremely dedicated and knowledgeable individuals, and we are excited to have them take on more of a leadership role within our Community.
The AOP community is growing rapidly and we have selected these AOP Community Leaders to help maintain the quality of the great discussions in the forum as we grow. You'll notice that there is no need for approval of current posts, and we have no plans to implement that. This is a tremendous community and we are looking forward to the positive impact and leadership the Community Leaders will bring to the AOP Community!
Congratulations again to AOP Researchers Ddenim, Engr009, Phanwy, and Sedulous!
Posted by Greg McKallagat on Thu, Aug 26, 2010 @ 11:39 AM
Article One Researcher Pierre (msasangu) was the Winning Researcher for Study WTL 486 – Modular and Customizable Process and System for Capturing Field Documentation Data in a Complex Project Workflow System. Pierre hails from Canada where he is currently an independent contractor.
Q. How did you first learn about Article One?
Pierre: Last year in November, I travelled to New York City to visit my relatives. By accident I was surfing the "NY Craig Lists" and I noticed that you were looking for Researchers. At that time I did not realize how global this activity was. When Back to Canada I contacted AOP and expressed my interest to be a Researcher. But I have been really active only in the last 6 months or so and I enjoy it.
Q. Where do you live?
Pierre: I live In Canada. I am a Canadian Citizen
Q. What, if any, background do you have in patent research or research in general?
Pierre: While at University completing my PhD in Chemistry, I had a compulsory course in literature search. This helped me a lot during my career as R&D Scientist. I have been involved in R&D for more than 10 years in both private and public sectors. I am now an independent contractor and will put all my knowledge to the contribution and the advancement of this community. I want to stress that motivation; passion and interest are the most important factors of success even as Researcher. I love to make Research of any sort even the most difficult ones. I am always motivated to solve "that problem" first and the reward will be added to it when the problem has been correctly fixed.
Q. What is your profession?
Pierre: I am a Professional R&D Scientist. I have one Patent, issued recently for the moment but I hope to invent more in the near future.
Q. What is your education background?
Pierre: Chemical Engineering and PhD in Chemistry
Q. Please explain your expertise which you find most relevant to your work with Article One.
Pierre: As I mentioned before, R&D Jobs I have previously required a lot of literature search. This helped me a lot, but I still think that that motivation, passion and interest are the most important determinant factors for success even in this business
Q. What do you like best about being an Article One Advisor?
Pierre: Freedom and also learning new things constantly on a regular basis. I believe that life is a learning process regardless of your origin, sex or age.
Q. Do you know of any good patent research educational texts, resources or websites?
Pierre: I normally use a combination of the following databases: WIPO, Espacenet.com, Boliven.com, Google and Google patent. Most of these databases are relational databases and that makes the search relatively easy to do.
Q. Which study so far have you most enjoyed researching?
Pierre: All studies are important to me regardless the field of study and the level of difficulty
Q. How do you choose which studies you participate in?
Pierre: I read the abstract first and the main text thereafter. If the text is really difficult, I will read it again at least 3 times before I start selecting important key words to search and relate them to the whole entire patent or study.
Q. Which research tools do you frequently use?
Pierre: Intuitive, inductive and mostly effectual reasoning and curiosity
Q. What is your primary language?
Pierre: French
Q. Are you fluent in any other languages?
Pierre: Yes, English and Swedish
Q. In which language(s) do you conduct your research?
Pierre: English of course
Q. Do you have special access to any particular databases which you leverage for your research?
Pierre: As I mentioned earlier I normally use a combination of the following databases: WIPO, Espacenet.com, Boliven.com, Google and Google patent. Most of these databases are relational databases and that makes the search relatively easy to do.
Q. Do you conduct research in any non-English databases?
Pierre: Only one time in French
Q. You won one of the AOP studies right? Which study?
Pierre: WTL 486
Q. Where did you find the prior art which won the study?
Pierre: I do not remember exactly but it was a combination of at least two databases
Q. What was the process that led you to the winning prior art?
Pierre: I just made the research, submitted my answer(s) and I did not know that I will win. Can you really know in advance that you can win? Definitely not!
Q. What did you do with the reward money?
Pierre: I will invest in a fast computer system and my wife will make the budget for the rest of the money. She is good at that.
Q. Which Article One Studies are you currently researching?
Pierre: Semiconductors or so I believe
Q. What advice would you give to a new Advisor researching his/her first Article One Study?
Pierre: Passion, passion, passion and interest, then things will be fun! Think to solve the problem first. Forget about reward, because it will be added to, when the problem is solved correctly.
Q. What would you say to somebody who was considering becoming an Article One Advisor?
Pierre: Come onboard. It fun and you will learn a lot for your own sake.
Are you a Researcher who wants to be featured in the Article One blog and newsletter? Click Here
Posted by Greg McKallagat on Fri, Aug 20, 2010 @ 02:14 PM
Article One Researcher Ramesh is the winner of two AOP Studies:
Min 120 – Minerva Industries Study regarding cell phones
JSA 857 – JSA Technologies Study
Through his work with Article One Ramesh has received $20,000 in reward money and thousands of AOP profit sharing points!
Ramesh first learned about Article One through browsing on the web. Ramesh has been working with IT professionals and searching for documents for more than a decade. He was attracted to AOP because of the “good amount of technology information on the Article One website and the monetary reward.” Currently, Ramesh lives and works in Oman for the Ministry of Education. In Oman, he performs a teaching role for the ministry in which he focuses on teaching information technology subjects. Ramesh has a Doctoral PHD in computer science, and he was also a professor at an Engineering College in India.
Ramesh has worked for a number of companies and educational institutes where he specialized in a variety of areas including programming, web search, Lecturing, patent and IP analysis, and Patent research. All told, Ramesh has about 18 years of experience in Patent Research!
When conducting research for Article One Studies, Ramesh makes sure to first understand the issue. He starts by going through the complete subject matter of the patent in question. Ramesh then distinguishes the crux of the core issue and starts his research, ensuring that he maintains the latest date for prior art. Ramesh says it is important to start with bigger domains and then narrow it down to smaller ones. This process will filter out the unwanted research material.
For his Research tools Ramesh frequently uses Google, Google Scholar, and the USPTO and PTO databases. He has also utilized Micropatents and Delphion databases. Ramesh usually relies on English research tools and documents, though he speaks English, Kannada and Hindi. Ramesh has an easy solution to the issue of deciding which Article One Studies to participate in; He simply researches them all!
When asked what he has done with his AOP reward money Ramesh says, “I put it into savings, my daughter’s education and my family. My father was a principal of a college and then went on to earn a PHD, so education is very important in my family.”
Ramesh has the following advice to the new members of the AOP community:
“Prepare to take on intellectually challenging studies and for a process which is very rewarding.
Cheryl [Milone] has set up very good team who is exciting to work with. If you have the passion you will enjoy the work!”
Are you an Advisor who wants to be featured in the Article One blog and newsletter? Click Here
Posted by Greg McKallagat on Tue, Aug 17, 2010 @ 03:40 PM
Article One Partners is thrilled to announce a new Shared Reward Compensation Plan. The research done by the AOP community is tremendous and we want to reward as many researchers as possible for their time and effort. With this new compensation plan we have accomplished just that: We will reward more Researchers for every study!
In the Shared Reward Compensation Plan, the Winner of each AOP Study will continue to receive the majority of the stated reward. However, Article One will also pay $100 each to a maximum of 10 Researchers (totaling up to $1,000 per Study) for high quality research submissions. The Researchers who receive the $100 Rewards will be referred to as Most Valuable Researchers on the Article One website.
Example of Shared Rewards
For an AOP Study with a posted reward of $10,000:
- Up to 10 Most Valuable Researchers will receive $100 each
- The Winner will receive $9,000
If there happens to be less than 10 Most Valuable Researchers, the Winner will receive the excess money. In other words, if there were only 7 Most Valuable Researchers, the Winner will receive $9,300.
If there are multiple Winners of a Study, they will split the majority amount, and this would not affect the amount available to Most Valuable Researchers.
For Guaranteed Reward Studies, the shared reward is also guaranteed. For Invalidity Studies, the shared reward is only paid if there is a Study Winner.
In developing the AOP Shared Reward Compensation Plan we gave special consideration to all of the wonderful ideas and feedback offered by Article One Researchers in the Community Forum, phone calls and emails.
It is important to us that AOP Researchers still have a large incentive to submit the highest quality research to win a Study, which is why the Winner of each Study will continue to receive a majority of the reward in the new Shared Reward Compensation Plan. However, we are excited that we will now also be able to immediately reward more Researchers for their efforts.
Shared Rewards will be integrated into all Studies launched after August 17, 2010, unless noted otherwise. Unfortunately, Shared Rewards will not be retroactive and does not apply to Studies that are currently active.
The Shared Reward Compensation Plan is being launched as Article One continues to ramp up the number of Studies on the site. With the greater chances of being rewarded for a Study, combined with the increased number of Studies launched, there is no better time than now to reap the rewards of being an Article One Researcher!
Register as a Researcher for Article One Partners. It's free and easy!
Join the community and get paid. You could earn up to $50,000 per study for your research.
Posted by Greg McKallagat on Thu, Aug 12, 2010 @ 12:16 PM
AOP Featured Researcher: Minerva Rivero (engr009)
Minerva Rivero joins Article One from Puerto Rico, where she currently resides. Minerva is one of the Winning Researchers for the DSI 279 Study regarding speech recognition patents and the EMER 911 Study regarding location detection for mobile phones. Minerva’s brother was kind enough to tell her about Article One after learning about us online.
Minerva graciously granted Article One the following interview:
Q. What is your profession?
Minerva: I’ve been an independent contractor since 2007 and do international patent application consulting as well as search engine evaluation. I’m also trying to get started as a Patent Agent.
Q. What is your education background?
Minerva: I have a BS with High Honors in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from the University of Puerto Rico. Currently, I’m pursuing a Graduate Certificate in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Maryland.
Q. Please explain your expertise which you find most relevant to your work with Article One?
Minerva: Patent disclosures are characterized by inflated, abstract language and as a Patent Examiner I acquired agility in sifting through such language to get to the essence of the invention. However, you don’t need an intellectual property background to develop this skill, anyone can go to Google Patents and study the format and read a few patents and quickly become dexterous in patent analysis. The engineering background has been useful in some studies, but I’ve also participated in studies not within my technical realm.
Q. What do you like best about being an Article One Advisor?
Minerva: I like that it is a high-return investment of my time, a few hours of research can potentially turn into thousands of dollars. I like that there is always a variety of active studies to participate in, so if I have some free time I can always count on there being something interesting at AOP. I like the flexibility of being able to conduct research at my pace, when I have time, from my home or anywhere. It’s also very satisfying because what AOP is doing is transcendental, particularly in this patent reform climate. AOP is a growing and productive community where interesting ideas are constantly flourishing and Advisors are an integral part of this dynamic; Advisors expose their ideas and AOP asks for our input in many initiatives.
Q. Which study so far have you most enjoyed researching?
Minerva: Studies where older patents are involved, for example, the EMER 911 and LUK 557 studies, are fascinating to research because you are looking at the state of technology of the time with the benefit of hindsight.
Q. How do you choose which studies you participate in?
Minerva: Mostly I participate in those studies where the subject matter is familiar to me. If I have time I’ll venture into unfamiliar topics. I also like the simpler studies such as the business cards study (DEV 126) and the paper towel dispenser study (AMC 898).
Q. Which research tools do you frequently use?
Minerva: Google Patents, online thesaurus, Wikipedia. I also use the Wayback machine (www.archive.org) and USPTO PAIR in some cases.
Q. What is your primary language?
Minerva: English and Spanish.
Q. Are you fluent in any other languages?
Minerva: Basic level of French and Italian.
Q. In which language(s) do you conduct your research?
Minerva: English
Q. Do you have special access to any particular databases which you leverage for your research?
Minerva: IEEE Xplore.
Q. Do you conduct research in any non-English databases?
Minerva: I sometimes search in the Japanese Abstracts Database.
Q. You won one of the AOP studies right? Which study?
Minerva: I was one of the winners in the EMER 911 and DSI 279 studies.
Q. What was the process that led you to the winning prior art?
Minerva: I came in late to the EMER 911 study so I focused on specific limitations as disclosed in dependent claims of the invention, as opposed to searching for the broader invention or independent claims. For the DSI 279 study, which was a guaranteed study, I focused on the inventions as a whole. I once read that a good prior art search strategy should look like a DNA double helix, with iterative broadening and narrowing of the scope and that’s usually my approach: I first start with the broadest search syntax, using as many equivalents for each term as I can find. That first search will almost certainly yield new equivalent terms that I use to expand my search query accordingly. I continue broadening and narrowing the search queries as required.
Q. What did you do with the reward money?
Minerva: The reward money is one of the main sources of funding for a Master’s degree I will start this fall in the UK at the University of Nottingham: MSc in Electrical Technology for Sustainable and Renewable Energy Systems. The rewards had perfect timing!
Q. Which Article One Studies are you currently researching?
Minerva: I’m researching the DEV 126 (two-sided printable media) and the semiconductor manufacturing study (MOF 112).
Q. What advice would you give to a new Advisor researching his/her first Article One Study?
Minerva: Patience and a positive attitude, it might be difficult to dedicate time to research at first and really delve into a study before you have seen a monetary award, but in my opinion the chances of winning are high. The first studies will be more difficult but the strategy is learnable so subsequent studies get easier.
Q. What would you say to somebody who was considering becoming an Article One Advisor?
Minerva: There is nothing to lose; a little time investment will likely go very far, it is a win-win proposition. There are also other ways that an Advisor can benefit from joining AOP, such as networking opportunities via the forum.
Are you an Advisor who wants to be featured in the Article One blog and newsletter? Click here.
Posted by Cheryl Milone on Tue, Aug 03, 2010 @ 10:29 AM
In a notice published in the Federal Register last month (75 Fed. Reg. 39493), the United States Patent and Trademark Office requested comments on its 2010-2015 Strategic Plan. The period for comments closed yesterday, August 2nd.
In the spirit of openness, I want to share what I submitted. I invite any comments on my thoughts below.
Comments for Draft USPTO 2010-2015 Strategic Plan
I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments about the Draft USPTO 2010-2015 Strategic Plan. First, as a member of the patent bar and a patent attorney, I am impressed with the Plan on numerous levels: the extensive breadth and scope of improvements Director Kappos and his team seek to address; the powerful multifaceted approach to improve patent quality both by the Patent Office Examiner corps and applicants by, for example, altering Examiner work plan incentives, providing better IT tools for Examiners and enabling applicants to prioritize examination of applications; and, the delivery of efficiency and execution demonstrated by the Office’s timely Interim Guidelines for Bilski.
The patent bar has had high expectations of Director Kappos and this Plan validates those expectations. I hope that the factors upon which the Plan relies for success will be realized.
Second, I offer high-level suggestions with the notion that they require further analysis of decision-making authority and other legal or practical limitations. They are intended to address issues in the patent industry on a practical level:
a) “Forum” shopping considerations for the approach that the source of prior art searches is first patent office (U.S. or international) in which a patent application is filed. One area to consider is the variation in quality that may exist between patent offices and the potential of “forum” shopping to offices where there may be more favorable search results. While the U.S. pilot and subsequent execution are assumed to have quality control processes, a misalignment may occur where stakeholders detect a process advantage at a given patent office. Additional stakeholders seeking the same patent office can exacerbate the problem. Rising volume at a given patent office, either due to more favorable or expedited search results, also may put pressure on the quality produced by the office as the volume increases.
b) Cost-effective post issuance patent quality review. The NPE litigation data continues to show an increase in litigation assertions particularly in jurisdictions viewed as friendly to NPEs. There also is wide recognition and a target set by this Patent Office of patent quality improvements.
With the statistic that nearly half of all patents litigated to judgment are found to be invalid (John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, “Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents,” 28 Am. Intell. Prop. L. Ass’n Q.J. 185 (1998)), and the general notion of $1 million in costs for alleged infringers pre-trial, litigation is not the optimal venue to analyze issued patents asserted in litigation in the first instance. Alleged infringers have attempted to direct this analysis in reexamination requests to the USPTO as an alternative to trial. However, there is an uneven response of courts to stay litigations even where alleged infringers have not received notice of infringement. Often, alleged infringers’ first awareness of patent infringement assertions is from complaints filed to initiate litigations.
One basis for this unevenness is the long pendency of reexaminations. In one recent decision, the denial of a stay for a filed reexamination was simply on the prejudice of the average pendency of the litigation being much less than the average pendency of inter partes reexamination. Telecommunication Systems, Inc. v. Sybase 365, Inc, 2:09cv387. E.D.Va. (Dec. 2009). One approach for the coordinated action between the USPTO and federal judiciary suggested in the Plan is for reexaminations filed within a predetermined period of time from litigation filings (e.g., 6 months), to be processed while the litigation is stayed. Reducing the reexamination pendencies, which already is a stated goal of the USPTO, would need to be an important component of the coordination to reduce the burden to alleged infringers and the public of the cost of litigation where patent quality generally remains uncertain. Successful implementation of the USPTO 2010-2015 Strategic Plan requires time to filter through the patent application process. It will be several years before the success of this Strategic Plan is realized by the private sector.
Cheryl Miione, B.S.E.E., Esq., CEO and Founder of www.ArticleOnePartners.com
Posted by Cheryl Milone on Tue, Jul 27, 2010 @ 01:36 PM
I applaud Rebecca Burn Callander’s post on Wikilitigation and the insights Ms. Callander offers on the use of crowdsourced evidence to shed light on the accuracy of medical research. The circuitous and expensive path of litigation would have been the alternative, subjecting the public to a decision on important medical topics to a battle of the experts. The risk here was not for Mr. Singh alone but for the public in need of access to accurate medical data. On a broader level, the public subsidizes the current legal system in both the U.K. and U.S. so the public pays in multiple ways.
Clear and efficient analysis is what is needed to provide accurate information to the public on topics subjected to litigation. The personal interests of parties are regularly served by the machine that makes up the legal system - attorneys, experts, consultants, judges and service providers supporting these components. These stakeholders generally are compensated based on the continuation of a legal dispute, not on its settlement. As such, the incentives to serve the public and provide justice as a public policy basis are misaligned with the stakeholders responsible for realizing these policies.
In this litigation, the risk to an individual and the public was great enough to spur public action. And the result is dramatic in providing evidence that becomes incontrovertible, as it is the aggregation of knowledge from everyone with an interest in the topic. The aggregation of knowledge is greater than that of any one individual. When the aggregate answer is clear, the power of providing certainty becomes as important as the answer itself.
Whenever an answer is knowable if enough people are asked and the same set of people is burdened by a failure to uncover the right answer, asking everyone would seem to be a natural evolution. Hence, I believe that Wikilitigation is not only going to survive but it will be the dominant form of input from an increasingly sophisticated public. The notion of citizen’s review is discussed in every branch of government from those agencies, which grant rights to citizens to the legal system, which adjudicates those rights.
One excellent example is the grant and adjudication of patent rights. A patent is, in essence, a description of technology as of a certain date (in the U.S., the date is called the invention date). The determination of whether to grant a patent is based in part on research about whether the description of technology is in an earlier dated publication. Courts later review the same question, and litigants in a patent dispute further research the earlier publications. While the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office does high quality work, its resources are limited to fully research this evidence, which can be publicly available documents in any language from anywhere in the world. The burden on the public for improperly granted patents is the payment of monopoly pricing for products and systems covered by the patents.
Article One Partners, which I founded in November 2008, provides the opportunity to the public to weigh in on these questions based on a platform that crowdsources this evidence. An incentive is added to the platform so that researchers are compensated for uncovering premier evidence. In this way, the public can weigh in on patents and correct an improper grant thereby providing savings to the public.
This takes the goal of making the court accessible to the public a step further, by compensating the public for their efforts – in effect monetizing a public good.
In the same manner as the publicwas given clarity about the efficacy of medical claims in the chiropractic field, public input on scientific research underlying patents can support the proper scope of some patents which provides litigants with the evidence needed to correct improper grants.
The community of Article One Partners provides a valuable service along the lines of Wikilitigation in the patent industry. We invite members of the public interested in pursuing these goals to join our efforts at www.ArticleOnePartners.com. While the evidence provided cannot definitely provide an answer on patents, just as the litigation against Mr. Singh continued past the revelation of the public information, it can drive settlement of litigation and enable the parties to proceed more efficiently.
Posted by David DiGiammarino on Thu, Jul 22, 2010 @ 09:59 AM
One of our founding principles at Article One Partners is the belief that the wisdom of a crowd can often outweigh the performance of individuals or small teams. A crowd helps you reach the right people, and can compile far more information than any one person. We have found, time and time again, that asking the world to submit patent validity evidence means better and faster results.
This phllosophy is called crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing is the act of outsourcing tasks -- which are traditionally performed by an employee or contractor -- to a crowd or community, through an open call.
It's working with patent research. We've seen it work with an encyclopedia. But what about a movie?
This year, we're going to find out. YouTube (and Google), Ridley Scott and Kevin MacDonald have teamed up to bring the world the first ever crowdsourced movie -- and you can participate.
The recording date will be this Saturday (July 24, 2010) around the world. Grab your phone, camera, or webcam and take a video! Anyone can submit. If your video is included, you'll be listed as a co-director and possibly even get invited to its premiere at Sundance.
Take a look at this overview:
Want to learn more? Head over to the "Life in a Day" YouTube Channel or read the FAQ.