January 29, 2009
IEEE has issued its 2009 patent reform recommendations. First off, a better USPTO, but not expanding their rule-making authority. Clarify software as patentable. And then they get woolly. "Consider alternatives to patent protection." Where they lament patent pendency. "Address recoveries for infringement." Their "recoveries" position sounds like they know nothing about damages or the Georgia-Pacific factors.
This lackluster position paper is typical of IEEE efforts.
As a long-standing member of IEEE, there's not much good to say about them. Practically everything about IEEE is rather half-assed, most especially their web site, which would offer a valuable source of prior art, if their search engine was decent, and they had half the sense ACM has in making publications accessible, rather than trying to nickel-and-dime members for articles. In prior art search, I find more IEEE articles through Google Scholar than I do through IEEE.
Posted by Patent Hawk at January 29, 2009 2:14 PM | The Patent System
The way I understand it their search tool is just so complicated that us mere mortals cannot comprehend how to use it. I stopped using the search tool on the website for anything but authors a long time ago, google gets them easy as pie.
Speaking of ACM, we must be talking about a different ACM because the ACM I know about has all kinds of small branches that still charge dollars for articles and it really pises me off because it takes time to get those articles for free. Somebody somewhere knows how to get it through the PTO loan system from someone other than the publisher. Takes a week though.
At least all the IEEE articles (even conferences etc.) are all at the one page so my browser can give me already paid for pto access automatically.
Posted by: 6000 at January 29, 2009 5:02 PM
IEEE's search engine today is infinitely better than what they put up a few years ago (in 2005). The only way to use it back then was to write "scripts" to change plain language queries into IEEE-speak. (And the search engine was supposedly designed by EEs and CEs, as an "improvement" over IEEE Explore 1.0 which worked just fine.)
Try to figure these out, from their "complex" examples:
"Here is an example of a complex query using these operators:
(( (moon, man, vehicle)))"
"((rfidti) (radio frequency identificationti)) (((privacyti,ab),(securityti,ab)))"
Actually, I think the logic they set up had so many bugs in it (even if you figured it out and wrote your query correctly, it would often give the wrong results) that they had to replace it with what we have now.
Posted by: NIPRA anonymous at January 30, 2009 7:07 AM
Ah, the blog apparently strips pointed brackets from the comments, so the queries apparently don't come through. :-(
Posted by: NIPRA anonymous at January 30, 2009 7:10 AM