[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Patents, schmatents (was: hi)

• To: Scott Parnell <scottp12@r...>
• Subject: Re: Patents, schmatents (was: hi)
• From: Bob Wyman <bob@w...>
• Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:10:32 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• Reply-to: bob@w...

Scott Parnell wrote:
>Anyone remember BountyQuest?
   Of course... But, I consider BountyQuest to be an 
excellent example of thinking about the process in the wrong 
way. BountyQuest only sought very specific "on all points" 
prior-art. In fact, there were many who complained to them 
that they had identified prior-art that BountyQuest refused 
to reward because it was more general than the specific 
claims they were trying to defeat. 
    BountyQuest had the right idea -- actively seek ways to 
invalidate bad claims, but the wrong approach and way of 
thinking about the problem. They fell into the lawyers trap 
of insisting on "on all points" prior-art while avoiding the 
opportunities to strengthen the system by establishing the 
general principles and boundaries of what is innovative. They 
sought to focus on just the specific momentary and short-
sighted interests of their clients while ignoring the 
admittedly harder process of ensuring long-term protection 
against specious claims.

    bob wyman

• Prev by Date: RE: best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
• Next by Date: RE: best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
• Previous by thread: RE: best practice for providing newsfeeds ?
• Next by thread: OT: SSNs - Was RE: Schema fragments for everyday stuff
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread