After seeing this question and rereading Greg's "panel discussions" on
similar issues, I think it's another example of the dichotomous thinking
of the legal and the sci/tech mind. Like one of the responders
observes, it's like the need for applicants to cite KNOWN prior art.
Overly avoiding risk in the latter can discourage searching.
Of course the "safe" way is no database at all, but this also promotes
ignorance, a deplorable situation. If a database is allowed, mechanical
("mindless"?) SDI seems to be the lesser risk way to construct it. But
even "mechanical" SDI profile need to be constructed by someone who can
think, and of course the better searching minds not only construct
better profiles but supplement them with intelligent perusal of the
literature.
Come on, troops. It IS public information, after all. Only lawyers can
interpret technology on an a comparative or infringement basis?
Information professionals are often accused of self promotion when they
prescribe information processes; why not lawyers? If risk aversion is
carried to extremes, we won't need lawyers either.
(Usual disclaimers, including that I'm not a legal or even patent
professional per se. I do plead guilty to thinking, esp. being an
"S-thinker" (scientific) rather than a managerial/legal thinker.)
-- Bob Buntrock
Buntrock Associates, Inc.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 15:58:03 EDT