Quality lacking in HP laptops?
Although Hewlett-Packard has been complaining about "lack of quality" in US patents, it seems that there may quality issues with their laptops.
A recent post on tech.yahoo notes:
The least reliable [laptop] brands? Acer, Gateway, and HP. HP's hardware malfunction rate, the worst in SquareTrade's analysis, is a whopping 25.6 percent.
If you were wondering:
The most reliable companies? A shocker: Toshiba and Asus, both with below a 16 percent failure rate due to hardware malfunction.
The study was based on laptops which were covered by a SquareTrade warranty and states:
ASUS and Toshiba laptops failed just over half as frequently as HP, which makes them a solid
bet in terms of reliability.
Os HP and patent reform:
Hewlett-Packard focuses on patent quality, not patent quantity
On the subject of getting fewer, high quality patents:
See BusinessWeek post by Michael Arndt titled Patent Volume Isn't the Best Innovation Gauge. Arndt writes
the Patent Board publishes five more ways to put a value on patent portfolios, including citations by other patent seekers. Apparently, Arndt and "the Patent Board" have not been keeping track of the literature which questions the value of patent citations.
Thirteen years ago, in the Dec. 96 issue of Intellectual Property Today, LBE wrote:
BN [Breitzman and Narin ] promise to review all the studies which have shown the importance of highly cited patents. There are many papers that have questioned the value of patent citation. n12
n12 Edlyn S. Simmons and Nancy Lambert, "Patent Statistics: Comparing Grapes and Watermelons", Proc. Montreux 1991 Int. Chemical Information Conference published in "Recent Advances in Chemical Information", Royal Society of Chemistry, Spec. Publ. 100, 1992.; see also Stuart M. Kaback, Nancy Lambert, and Edlyn S. Simmons, "Patent Citations: Source of Insight or Nothing to Get Excited About?", August 1994 meeting of American Chemical Society [this reference notes: "Patent citations turn out to be quite different in character from the citations we may be familiar with in the citation literature."]; E. Simmons, "Patent family databases 10 years later", Database, Vol. 18(3), Pg. 28, (June, 1995).
As I noted in June, 1996, some highly cited patents may be of pioneering status. However, since all highly cited patents are not of pioneering status, one cannot use a high citation frequency as a proxy for value. All factors leading to high citation must be analyzed. Even in prestigious prizes, such as the Nobel or the Lasker, all factors involved must be considered n13.
See also
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/07/patent-quality-arguments-of-ocean-tomo.html
On patent reform generally:
Patent Reform: selling tomatoes as cantaloupes from a carrot box?
"Hitler" attacks the anti-IP academic elite
Of HP and pretexting:
HP settles with CA AG Lockyer over pretexting
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/09/pretexting-at-hewlett-packard.html
A recent post on tech.yahoo notes:
The least reliable [laptop] brands? Acer, Gateway, and HP. HP's hardware malfunction rate, the worst in SquareTrade's analysis, is a whopping 25.6 percent.
If you were wondering:
The most reliable companies? A shocker: Toshiba and Asus, both with below a 16 percent failure rate due to hardware malfunction.
The study was based on laptops which were covered by a SquareTrade warranty and states:
ASUS and Toshiba laptops failed just over half as frequently as HP, which makes them a solid
bet in terms of reliability.
Os HP and patent reform:
Hewlett-Packard focuses on patent quality, not patent quantity
On the subject of getting fewer, high quality patents:
See BusinessWeek post by Michael Arndt titled Patent Volume Isn't the Best Innovation Gauge. Arndt writes
the Patent Board publishes five more ways to put a value on patent portfolios, including citations by other patent seekers. Apparently, Arndt and "the Patent Board" have not been keeping track of the literature which questions the value of patent citations.
Thirteen years ago, in the Dec. 96 issue of Intellectual Property Today, LBE wrote:
BN [Breitzman and Narin ] promise to review all the studies which have shown the importance of highly cited patents. There are many papers that have questioned the value of patent citation. n12
n12 Edlyn S. Simmons and Nancy Lambert, "Patent Statistics: Comparing Grapes and Watermelons", Proc. Montreux 1991 Int. Chemical Information Conference published in "Recent Advances in Chemical Information", Royal Society of Chemistry, Spec. Publ. 100, 1992.; see also Stuart M. Kaback, Nancy Lambert, and Edlyn S. Simmons, "Patent Citations: Source of Insight or Nothing to Get Excited About?", August 1994 meeting of American Chemical Society [this reference notes: "Patent citations turn out to be quite different in character from the citations we may be familiar with in the citation literature."]; E. Simmons, "Patent family databases 10 years later", Database, Vol. 18(3), Pg. 28, (June, 1995).
As I noted in June, 1996, some highly cited patents may be of pioneering status. However, since all highly cited patents are not of pioneering status, one cannot use a high citation frequency as a proxy for value. All factors leading to high citation must be analyzed. Even in prestigious prizes, such as the Nobel or the Lasker, all factors involved must be considered n13.
See also
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/07/patent-quality-arguments-of-ocean-tomo.html
On patent reform generally:
Patent Reform: selling tomatoes as cantaloupes from a carrot box?
"Hitler" attacks the anti-IP academic elite
Of HP and pretexting:
HP settles with CA AG Lockyer over pretexting
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/09/pretexting-at-hewlett-packard.html
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 5:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home