Sunday, November 13, 2005

More Google searching on patent reform

Searching +"patent reform" +2795 on Nov. 13 at 8:30pm produced 715 hits. That's more hits than before, AND some of the old hits are missing. Again, what you get on the search depends on "when" you do the search.

Page 1: (2) (blog entry for June 2005) (blog)

Page 2: (blog) (article by Greg Mayer) (2)(law firm entry) (law firm entry) (blog) (law firm entry)

Page 3: (2)(law firm entry) (law firm) Title35-perSmith_Substitute_26Jul2005.pdf (2) ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm patent_legislation/patent_issues.html (First appearance in first three pages)

[IPBiz (continuations) which had been on page 3 is no longer in the first 27 pages]

Page 4: patent/2005/07/library_of_cong.html (blog) (2)(law firm entry) pdf/Statement_Lemley.pdf 2005_patent_legislation/status.html

***Searching +"patent reform" +2795 on Nov. 14 at 7:15am yields 711 hits, down 4 in less than 12 hours.

A newly appearing hit on page 8 is from generic pharma. It is a press release dated Sept. 15 and says:

“By eliminating some infringement defenses and weakening others, the bill will not increasepatent quality but, in fact, will dilute the integrity of the U.S. patent system,” said Jaeger. “And by allowing companies to obtain suspect patents, the bill necessarily will increase costs to consumers who rely on affordable generic drugs. Suspect, but unchallengeable patents, translate into longer monopolies and higher prices for branded drugs.”The legislation also would eliminate the “best mode” requirement, under which the inventor must disclose in the patent application the most efficient known method known for producing the invention. Elimination of this requirement would give the inventor a further monopoly[sic ?], as the public would have to spend time reinventing the best way to make the product after the patenth as expired.

Dale Carlson's substantive articles on the "best mode" issue in H.R. 2795(appearing in IDEA and in the National Law Journal) do not appear in the hits, either directly or by citation. My substantive article "Imagine" is at the bottom of page 16; "Patent Reform 2005 (IPT, on obviousness issues) and "Patent Reform 2005 (NJLJ, analyzing HR 2795) are no where to be found in the search. Not only do the Google search results appear not to be content-driven, they seem to be content-adverse.

Of the list on Nov. 14-->

page 1: (2) patent/2005/06/patent_reform_p.html ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

page 2: 2005/06/the_ptp_patent_1.html cfm?section_id=76&document_id=10065 (2) article.asp?id=5259&deptid=2 news/news_detail.aspx?newsid=337042903

page 3: Title35-perSmith_Substitute_26Jul2005.pdf (2) ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm patent_legislation/patent_issues.html pdf/Statement_Lemley.pdf


Post a Comment

<< Home