Re: [PIUG List] human-being test on Public PAIR

Carl:

This is becoming more and more prevalent as bots attempt to automatically=
 
gather information. Many sites I visit have implemented this feature. L=
et
me play devil's advocate, if you were running the site and your servers w=
ere
being overloaded what would your solution be? I agree what was implement=
ed
is the easy solution.

My suggestion would be a filter to detect abnormal amounts of traffic fro=
m
one IP address and block it. This is getting to be standard operating
procedure for ISP's. The USPTO could spend a few dollars on such a
software/hardware solution and add it to their network. Just a thought.

mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Oppedahl" <carl_at_oppedahl.com>
To: "PIUG Discussion List @ Listbox" <piug_discussion_list_at_v2.listbox.com=
>
Cc: <efs-web-l_at_oppedahl.com>; <piug_discussion_list_at_v2.listbox.com>;
<partridge-l_at_oppedahl.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 6:59 PM
Subject: [PIUG List] human-being test on Public PAIR


> (Followups should go to the PAIR-L list serve.)
>
> Just today I happened to visit Public PAIR, and a screen popped up that=
 I
> had not seen before. It says:
>
> "To continue, you are required to enter the verification code as shown =
in
> the box below. This step helps prevent disruptive use by automated
> programs. For information on PAIR Usage Policy, visit
> http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html."
>
> The screen then invites me to read one of those intentionally blurred t=
ext
> images that is employed by webmasters to check to see if I am a human
> being, and invites me to type its content into the box.
>
> I had not seen this screen in Private PAIR before. Did I just miss this=
,
> or is it something new as of today (January 1, 2008)?
>
> If you click on the link that is offered, you will see the usage policy=
:
>
> "To maintain general availability of USPTO information and services
> provided on the Internet, any activities or operations that cause a den=
ial
> or diminution (decrease) of services to other customers, whether genera=
ted
> automatically or manually, may result in the Office’s denying access =
to
> the Office Internet resources to the offender."
>
> I must assume that what has been going on here is that somebody has bee=
n
> vacuuming up the entire contents of Public PAIR by means of an automate=
d
> program, and that USPTO has not been able to keep up with that load on =
the
> Public PAIR server. And that USPTO has thus far failed in the
> cat-and-mouse game of trying to block the IP address of that user.
> Presumably that user keeps hopping from one IP address to the next, and=
 
> USPTO has not been able to keep up. And that this new screen is intende=
d
> to block that user, whoever it is.
>
> What is unfortunate about this action by USPTO is that it blocks not on=
ly
> "disruptive use by automated programs" but also *non-disruptive* use by=
 
> automated programs. In other words, a perfectly legitimate automated
> program that does not disrupt anything -- a perfectly legitimate automa=
ted
> program that does not "cause a denial or diminution" -- gets blocked ju=
st
> like the vacuuming program.
>
> For example a few years ago, our firm had offered free software called
> "Partridge-Pub". That software permitted a user to monitor the status o=
f
> selected US patent applications by means of queries to the Public PAIR
> system as it then existed. (Unfortunately at that time, USPTO's Public
> PAIR system rendered dates erratically and erroneously and it led to
> status results that could not be trusted -- something would appear to h=
ave
> changed its status when in fact no status had changed. So we withdrew t=
hat
> software.)
>
> I mention this because we intentionally designed Partridge-Pub to run
> *slowly*. We intentionally designed it so that there was no way it coul=
d
> possibly slow down the USPTO server or deny service to anybody else. We=
 
> designed it so that it could not possibly load the USPTO server any mor=
e
> than a manual user could have loaded the server. We designed it so that=
 
> the user could select which items would be checked daily, and which wou=
ld
> be checked monthly, and so on, so that things that did not need to be
> checked every day would not get checked every day, thereby further
> reducing the load on the USPTO server. We designed it so that it could =
be
> started at an off-peak time such as the end of the day, and could run
> unattended in the middle of the night, so that it would not have any
> effect at all on manual users during the day.
>
> If we had developed and released a new Partridge-Pub a month ago, the
> result would be that it would have stopped working today. Whatever mone=
y
> we might have spent to develop and release such software would, as of
> today, be flushed down the drain.
>
> This action by USPTO also imposes a "tax" on each and every legitimate
> manual user of Public PAIR, wasting fifteen or thirty seconds of the
> valuable time of each and every user, over and over again, 24 hours a d=
ay,
> seven days a week. Hundreds of thousands of USPTO customers will pay th=
is
> "tax" every day, all because of a failed cat-and-mouse game involving o=
ne
> or two abusive users. And the tax is even higher for those USPTO custom=
ers
> who have visual impairments and cannot easily read the intentionally
> blurred text images, and who must therefore find the "sound" button and=
 
> click on it and then type in the words. I tried clicking the "sound"
> button and the sounds were (a) nearly impossible to make out over what =
I
> imagine was intentional background noise, and (b) took sixty seconds or=
 
> longer to play.
>
> I note that this action by USPTO took place without any consultation
> whatsoever with USPTO's paying customers.
>
> Of course I share USPTO's concern about blocking an abusive user of a
> USPTO system. And there probably was a correct way to proceed. This jus=
t
> wasn't it.
>
> -------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> PIUG List owner: Patent Information Users' Group Inc. (R), http://
> www.piug.org
> PIUG List rules and guidelines: http://www.piug.org/list.php
> PIUG List admin: piug_discussion_list-owner(at)v2(dot)listbox(dot)com
> PIUG Discussion List @ Listbox
> Modify Your Subscription:
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&
> Unsubscribe Now:

-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PIUG List owner: Patent Information Users' Group Inc. (R), http://
www.piug.org
PIUG List rules and guidelines: http://www.piug.org/list.php
PIUG List admin: piug_discussion_list-owner(at)v2(dot)listbox(dot)com
PIUG Discussion List @ Listbox
13&id_secret=80787259-ecc472
d_secret=76057446-50c748

Received on Wed Jan 02 2008 - 01:15:58