James and Carl,
I'm in the same position, as I'm preparing an updated version of
PatentPrism, which is a utility for improving time efficiency for IP
professionals such as patent liaisons, corporate or academic IP
offices, etc. PatentPrism's premise is that there are excellent IP
databases available to the public, as long as you don't abuse them and =
can get in and out easily, so it provides simple links to database
gateways, from an Office interface to assist in lookup or search setup =
and other tasks. I'm certain that I reduce my on-line time (and that =
of my clients) to the USPTO using this interface.
In my IP consulting work, I sometimes need to pop in and out of
public PAIR several (or more) times during a workday, often during
live presentations, and my clients have come to count on this being a
very quick and efficient process. Though this new "feature" of PAIR
is more annoying than fatal for me while using PatentPrism, it IS
distracting, and I see it as a significant imPAIRment to using this
resource efficiently.
We know that the crooks are out there in force and working awfully
hard to ruin the internet for all or us. It makes little sense for
the PTO to have instituted this new procedure if this was not the
case. On this assumption, it sounds like a double win for the crooks
who are likely as not building private databases for high rent while
convincing the USPTO to restrict our access to the primary and best
database!
I just moved in and out of PAIR a few times today and found that the
human test takes under 10 seconds to pass, but it is still
uncomfortable to me as someone who has been scrupulous in accessing
one file at a time, and who has been working hard to assist others in
reducing their on-line time at the PTO.
I understand some possible motivations for this move by the PTO, and
what was done will likely be fairly effective for a while, but I agree =
with you that there are likely less invasive ways to accomplish the
goal.
Some quick thoughts, perhaps some combination of:
--a human interactive input required AFTER several minutes in PAIR
(encourages fast in-and-out, but doesn't prevent serious access)
--a time delay any time a new record is entered in the PAIR gateway
(but not to search, e.g., via continuity links within a family). Even
10 seconds would be livable, and would discourage bulk downloaders.
--a timeout (might be too debilitating)
--a handshake with a valid e-mail address
--a registration to a real identifiable person tied to a stable e-mail =
address (with some restrictions) to gain a bypass the human-required
interface
--logging quantity of downloads to a password
probably others to consider
I don't know the actual inspiration for this move by the PTO, but I do =
wonder if this is a closing of the barn door after the animals have
fled. I do know that PAIR has sometimes been slow enough recently
that maybe the human test isn't that much of a cost relative to 30 or
more second access delays or denial of access altogether for hours at
a time.
Regards,
Steve Bittenson
Steven N. Bittenson, Ph.D., Registered Patent Agent
Concepdance, LLC
101 Great Road #104, Bedford, MA 01730-2715
(781) 275-9510 office
(617) 320-0238 cell phone
sbittenson_at_concepdance.com
http://www.concepdance.com
PatentPrism software pages: http://www.patentprism.com
On Jan 1, 2008, at 7:17 PM, James Ryley wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> As someone involved in creating PAIR software right now, I second
> your statements.
>
> The sad thing is that most of this data (bibliographical info,
> maintenance fee info, simple look-ups by document number, etc.) is
> very fast and easy for a database to do. Unlike the main full-text
> search of the USPTO database, which does take some horsepower, I'm
> going to go out on a limb here and say that, given how relatively
> easy and inexpensive it would be, the proper solution for this
> problem is to add a server or two and just be able to keep up with
> the load, or at least provide the data, just like they do the full
> patent text, to 3rd party providers so that we can handle the load
> for them. Right now there is no mechanism for getting all the PAIR
> data and keeping it up to date -- which is probably why someone was
> heavily spidering it.
>
> 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 been sent. Nothing contained herein nor on
> a related web site should be construed as legal or patenting advice.
>
>> -----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
>> 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
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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=80826754-fc92d8
secret=76057446-50c748
Received on Wed Jan 02 2008 - 10:19:22
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Oct 17 2011 - 07:00:52