Saturday, December 22, 2007

Electronic documents as prior art at the USPTO

Patently-O has a post on --When is an Electronic Document a Printed Publication for Prior Art Purposes?--.

Don't think Patently-O discusses how the USPTO changes ITS documents, as discussed in
Internet Publishing: Online Today, But What About Tomorrow Or Where Have You Gone, 406,302?

Don't think there's a discussion of the Sikahema effect either.

***
One IPBiz reader wrote:

Don't you think this publication of YOURS, is a bit devious? You mildly go after Patently-O, by referring to an article on a website...but then YOU are the author of the "new" article? Come on, fess up...you should have mentioned in the IPBIZ post, that YOU had a response on the ezinearticles website.
After all, you could be Sikahema'd by ezinearticles, but you would have provided no support for your IPBIZ ref, you would be the guilty party.

(...)

And [IPBiz] "contributes" (or has put himself vulnerable to being a victim) of the same event-ironic, huh?


IPBiz notes that LBE did write the article about how the USPTO changed numbers in an internet-based annual report of USPTO productivity. Further, the USPTO did NOT mention in the later version that they were altering numbers published in the prior version. "But for" the numerous references in the published literature to the numbers of the prior version, the alteration might have gone unnoticed.

Separately, articles written for ezines are frequently copied by others, sometimes crediting the original author, sometimes not. Such copying diminishes the impact of a possible Sikahema. In the case of Alcatel deleting the "Bell Labs" - based copy of the Beasley report on Jan-Hendrik Schon, a different website is currently hosting a copy of the Beasley report. Of course, if this were "prior art" being used by the USPTO, one suspects there would be issues of "when" the initial report (no longer on the internet) was published, whether there were continuity with the later report on a different website, and in fact whether the later report were an authentic copy of the initial report. There's lots to worry about.

UPDATE.

Of the comment below, IPBiz suspects Vai Sikahema (and/or station management) knew they would not be retaining references to the Vai's View titled "Rutgers is Wrong" on the station's website.

Even on the day of the presentation, the expression of Vai's fellow correspondent at the end of this Vai's View suggested this one was problematic, becoming a goner when the Rutgers football team enjoyed success after August 2006. The presentation was both abrasive (at the time it was made) and non-prophetic (becoming clearly wrong after the 2006 season played out).
Whether Rutgers made good choices as to the abandonment of other sports may be questioned. HOWEVER, Vai's idea that it was all right for the Ohio State's of the world to invest heavily in football programs, but not for Rutgers, was simply wrong.

Separately, one notes that Vai doesn't talk about his theory any longer, either.

2 Comments:

Blogger David B. Woycechowsky said...

"Sikahema effect" is a misnomer. Presumably, Sikahema didn't cause Sikahema's article to vanish. If there has to be a meme on this then I nominate "Limited Persistence of Sikahema." Awkward but accurate.

6:24 AM  
Blogger David B. Woycechowsky said...

Thanks for the helpful clarification on the update. Question: when you use Sikahema Effect, do you mean: (i) any electronic info that becomes inaccessible; or (ii) electronic info that becomes inaccessible through a purposeful plan on the part of the info provider?

9:48 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home