Patent Law

Mike Shultz of Message Infusion and PR point person for Article One Partners alerted me to a January 30, 2009 post by Andy Oram of O'Reilly Media.  An interesting post, with lots of links, comparing and contrasting Peer-to-Patent and Article One Partners.  The following is an excerpt:

Many patent review efforts exist--PatentFizz, EFF's Patent Busting Project, CAMBIA's Patent Lens, and more--but their effectiveness has been constrained by the oddities of the patent system, the difficulties of reading patent language, and the sheer size of the undertaking in an age where some 150,000 patents are granted each year worldwide.

Peer-to-Patent, an academic research project affiliated with several patent offices, and Article One Partners, a commercial venture, are two promising entrants into the space. This article will described [sic] and compare these organizations, highlight a new "post-issue" site erected last week by Peer-to-Patent to seek prior art on patents that have already been issued, and try to tease out the social and economic trend represented by the organizations.

Most prior art is intimately known to somebody: the person who invented it, a student who wrote or read a paper about it, a user of the product, etc. If one of these people fortuitously happens upon a patent, he can provide a clincher instance of prior art in a few minutes.

Peer-to-Patent may be most useful for such people, who "graze" by returning often and quickly perusing the summaries of patents. In any case, the success of Peer-to-Patent rests on its positioning in the wide-open public thoroughfare, attracting a wide diversity of visitors from around the world, the polar opposite of a patent applicant working in secrecy.

Article One plans on three sources of income:

• Sales of promising instances of prior art to patent holders and those at risk of being targeted for infringement. Patent holders can use the prior art to reissue a patent with narrower and stronger claims; those targeted for infringement can try to overturn the patent.
• Investments in companies based on results of searches, which can indicate whether they are likely to profit from patents.
• Sponsored studies (the Bounty Quest model) which generate fees for the initial posting and contingency fees upon a successful conclusion.

...and a comment I found particularly intriguing:

Perhaps industries could agree on mandatory prior art studies, just as some industries now have mandatory arbitration. The prior art study would not preclude a lawsuit, but it could be an initial stage that could persuade one of the litigants to settle.

See the full post hereand thanks to Mike Shultz.