More on Googling patent reform and 2795

At various points in 2005, I posted the results of a Google search done on +"patent reform" +2795. On Dec. 16, 2005, this search yielded 748 hits.

On October 5, 2006, the search yielded 11,800 hits.

The first page of hits included:

www.publicknowledge.org/issues/hr2795
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.02795
patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/06/patent_reform_p.html
www.abanet.org/intelprop/home/PatentAct2005.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Reform_Act_of_2005
promotetheprogress.com/archives/2005/06/the_ptp_patent_1.html
www.ipo.org/.../ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm
vcexperts.com/vce/university/seminar_view.asp?id=54
www.smalltimes.com/articles/article_display.
www.mofo.com/news/updates/files/update02134.html

The second page of hits included:

www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-2795
www.answers.com/topic/patent-reform-act-of-2005
www.chi.org/legislative/federal/hr2795.aspx
www.michigansmalltech.com/news/
www.jonesday.com/patentlawreformupdates/
www.fr.com/news/articledetail.cfm?articleid=490
www.spectrum.ieee.org/dec05/comments/1328
www.smalltimes.com/articles/stm_print_screen.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=270296
www.4ipt.com/IPMetalworks/HR2795_Executive%20Summary_KKL.pdf
www.arentfox.com/webinarcentral/09272005webinar.html


One notes that Google identifies the same Small Times article on both page 1 and page 2 of the search results [redundancy issue].

The first "hit" for IPBiz is on page 7, and represents something that was written in September 2006 (and thus not available in 2005 when the previous Google searches were done):

ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/09/law-review-on-hr-2795-relies-on.html

The second "hit" for IPBiz is on page 26, and represents something that was written in March 2006:

ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/03/wheres-discussion-of-fee-diversion.html

Commentary from IPBiz on HR 2795 written in 2005 is not within the first 26 pages of the Google search, and would be unlikely to be "found" by anyone researching the topic using Google. Similarly, an article in the New Jersey Law Journal written directly on the point of HR 2795 and patent reform ["Sound and fury"] was no where to be found. Further, Chisum's excellent article "Reforming Patent Law Reform" was no where to be found. One should never forget that Google searches do not reflect the value of the content of the hit.

**UPDATE
In a different vein, a search on in re Kotzab on google (on Oct. 5) gave page 1 hits for patenthawk and for patently-o in which the hit comprised a citation to in re Kotzab. By page 11 of the google hits, many extraneous hits not related to the case in re Kotzab were showing up. Even though IPBiz had two posts with content identical to that in patenthawk and patently-o as to in re Kotzab, google did not return IPBiz as a hit at all. That is, not on page 26 (or higher); no hit, period, as if it were not there. Thus, google treats the SAME content in different sites, differently.

The two posts of IPBiz mentioning Kotzab are:

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2005/05/common-sense-in-obviousness-lee-277.html

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2005/05/in-their-haste-to-prepare-amicus-brief.html


The Kotzab case relates to obviousness, now at issue in KSR v. Teleflex: In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("The very ease with which the invention can be understood may prompt one to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the invention taught is used against its teacher."

[UPDATE on Oct. 16, 06: On a Google search for "In re Kotzab," the first two hits are for patenthawk/blog and the third hit is to a page in the MPEP
(www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2143_01.htm - 23k). IPBiz shows up on page 3, but only for the RECENT posting ( [Query: will Google bother to index this IPBiz post citing Kotzab...]) with the earlier postings still NOT present. This is similar to "patent reform" 2795, wherein the earliest posts simply are NOT findable on Google.]

***
Similarly, although IPBiz has a post referencing In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, another case relevant to obviousness, a google search on In re Dembiczak returns no hits for IPBiz, although it does return hits for other blogs.

***
Another case relevant to obviousness is Alza v. Mylan. IPBiz gave a detailed post on the case. Google indexed a different IPBiz post, which appears on page 8 of an Alza v. Mylan search, while other IP blogs are found on page one of the results. Google searches do not reveal the sites with the best content.

***
From workboxers in 2005:

Yeah I got crushed, too — most of my pages are out of the [Google] index. MSN & Yahoo are still linking, but Google dumped me completely. And I was even using Blogger thinking that would earn me points.