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

I agree completely with Carl here. Although I have not made use of any aut=
omated software to access PAIR, I have often wished for such automated acce=
ss to be made possible. I have not designed any screen-scraping software f=
or this site specifically out of concerns that they might introduce these '=
kaptchas' some day.

The USPTO should follow the lead of the EPO and allow for reasonable automa=
ted access to this data, but through a system designed for it. The EPO's O=
pen Patent Services and Publication Server are great examples of what can b=
e done. This moves the automated access off the public web server, and on =
to a system designed for this purpose.

Unfortunately, the USPTO's data policies seem to be stuck in the 1980's. I=
 would politely encourage them to begin looking at some new ways of doing b=
usiness. That's assuming, of course, that someone there is actually readin=
g this list.

Jason White
Intellectual Property Tools Manager
Semiconductor Insights
(613) 599-5145 x4371


-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Oppedahl [mailto:carl_at_oppedahl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 6:59 PM
To: PIUG Discussion List @ Listbox
Cc: 'efs-web-l_at_oppedahl.com'; piug_discussion_list_at_v2.listbox.com;
partridge-l_at_oppedahl.com
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
text 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
denial or diminution (decrease) of services to other customers, whether
generated 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 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
only "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 automated program that does not "cause a denial or
diminution" -- gets blocked just 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
have changed its status when in fact no status had changed. So we
withdrew that 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
would 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
day, seven days a week. Hundreds of thousands of USPTO customers will
pay this "tax" every day, all because of a failed cat-and-mouse game
involving one or two abusive users. And the tax is even higher for those
USPTO customers 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

-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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=80874458-b1a490
secret=76057446-50c748

Received on Wed Jan 02 2008 - 16:45:08