Patent transparency
In a post titled Transparency in the US Patent System, blogger Michael White starts with the WSJ piece by L. Gordon Crovitz, but quickly gets into defects in the way the USPTO organizes data.
Starting with Crovitz, IPBiz notes Crovitz was anything but transparent in suggesting Allied Security Trust was recently formed. As pointed out on IPBiz: The Trust was formed in March 2007, not exactly recent to July 2008. Crovitz got it wrong. Of course, the Trust itself was not exactly transparent in disclosing its formation, or in taking a vanilla-sounding, generic name.
White's blog notes: I believe that the dissemination of patent information is a public good and should be promoted, especially in the education of science and engineering students.
***
On a separate theme in transparency, californiastemcellreport still has not posted my comment on its post titled
WARF whacked again
UPDATE. Californiastemcellreport finally posted the comment later in the day on 21 July 2008.
Starting with Crovitz, IPBiz notes Crovitz was anything but transparent in suggesting Allied Security Trust was recently formed. As pointed out on IPBiz: The Trust was formed in March 2007, not exactly recent to July 2008. Crovitz got it wrong. Of course, the Trust itself was not exactly transparent in disclosing its formation, or in taking a vanilla-sounding, generic name.
White's blog notes: I believe that the dissemination of patent information is a public good and should be promoted, especially in the education of science and engineering students.
***
On a separate theme in transparency, californiastemcellreport still has not posted my comment on its post titled
WARF whacked again
UPDATE. Californiastemcellreport finally posted the comment later in the day on 21 July 2008.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 2:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home