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

But Mark, to play Devil's Advocate to your Devil's Advocate, why SHOULDN'T =
someone be able to get bulk PAIR information? Many times there are legitim=
ate research interests in such data, such as correlating various characteri=
stics of a patent with payment or non-payment of maintenance fees. And of =
course, large law firms may have hundreds or thousands of applications they=
 need to track for updates with some frequency. There are plenty of reason=
s for hitting PAIR hundreds, thousands, or even millions of times. People =
need to have access to this data in a manner conducive to their particular =
needs. The USPTO should either provide this access, or allow other people =
to. Now they are doing neither.

Sincerely,
James Ryley, Ph.D.
www.SumoBrain.com / www.FreePatentsOnline.com

This communication is to be treated as confidential and the information in =
it may not be used or disclosed except for the purpose for which it has bee=
n sent. Nothing contained herein nor on a related web site should be constr=
ued as legal or patenting advice.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Schisler [mailto:mschisler_at_sympatico.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 7:14 PM
> To: PIUG Discussion List @ Listbox
> Cc: efs-web-l_at_oppedahl.com; piug_discussion_list_at_v2.listbox.com; partridg=
e-
> l_at_oppedahl.com
> Subject: 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 from
> 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 a=
ccess to
> > the Office Internet resources to the offender."
> >
> > I must assume that what has been going on here is that somebody has been
> > vacuuming up the entire contents of Public PAIR by means of an automated
> > 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 intended
> > 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 of
> > 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 could
> > 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 more
> > 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 money
> > 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 just
> > 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
> 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
&id_secret=80790823-b13ac0
secret=76057446-50c748

Received on Wed Jan 02 2008 - 01:28:02