More on peer-to-patent

Further to "peer to patent," govexec.com notes:

The pilot, led by the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School and the Patent and Trademark Office, initially will accept 250 patent applications from major high-tech firms. IBM, Intel, Microsoft and others have agreed to be guinea pigs, said Beth Noveck, the professor leading the effort.


This communal approach will let the public submit existing inventions known as "prior art" and comment on their relevance to patent applications, Noveck said at a Capitol Hill briefing. Reviewers will rank submissions so PTO examiners can review the prior art deemed most relevant by the community.

The rollout of the "Peer to Patent Project" coincides with increased congressional attention to patent reform. Recent House and Senate proposals would have created a definitive test for "willful" infringement, and the pilot can further that goal, she said. "This is not a substitute but a compliment [sic] for a reform agenda."


The Washington Post notes: this wiki-type experiment is expected to start around June 1.

***Separately, from the dallasnews:


Dallas mayoral candidate Darrell Jordan says he did not plagiarize when lifting, verbatim or nearly verbatim, entire sections of other people's documents in crafting "The Darrell Jordan Accountability Pledge & Plan of Action to Reduce Crime" and "The Darrell Jordan Crime Reduction Plan."

"If there are similarities, there are similarities. Darrell looks at other ideas where people have been successful," said Jack Klaus , Mr. Jordan's campaign manager. "Just because you like a good idea that's out there doesn't make it plagiarism. If it's a good idea, it's a good idea."

IPBiz notes: "plagiarize with pride," just like the Harvard Business Review tells us.

from 88 JPTOS 1068:

Having a different focus, businessmen a priori are not necessarily friendly to intellectual property. In an article in the Harvard Business Review in April 2004, [FN6] one of the subheadings was "Plagiarize with pride," followed by the text "Softball competitors like to think that their bright ideas are sacred. But hardball players know better. They're willing to steal any good idea they see --as long as it isn't nailed down by a robust patent -- and use it for themselves." Note that the authors referred to a "robust" patent. The authors also stated: "The Hardball Player ventures closer to the boundary, whether established by law or social conventions, than competitors would ever dare." [FN7] Other authors at the Harvard Business Review have suggested that there are a lot of non-robust patents and, in so doing, have given much force to the idea of a patent quality issue.