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

Hi Carl,

As someone involved in creating PAIR software right now, I second your stat=
ements.

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 f=
or a database to do. Unlike the main full-text search of the USPTO databas=
e, 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 ke=
ep up with the load, or at least provide the data, just like they do the fu=
ll patent text, to 3rd party providers so that we can handle the load for t=
hem. Right now there is no mechanism for getting all the PAIR data and kee=
ping it up to date -- which is probably why someone was heavily spidering i=
t.

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: 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; partri=
dge-
> 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 d=
enying
> 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
&id_secret=80789420-83bb7a
secret=76057446-50c748

Received on Wed Jan 02 2008 - 01:22:02