>about us also? Perhaps you would even examine our site and make encouraging
>remarks as you did last week about Derwent?
You and talking with you does not look like it will lead to any effort
to get multiyear patent searching onto the Internet for free. Sure, once
I know what patents I want to look at, your front page service is quite
nice, but how do I determine what I want to look at? My Web site and
Carl's Web site was a start, the PTO's abstracts service is better, but
there is no reason why the Internet can't see the full APS system.
For those fighting to get APS onto the Internet, we could view your
efforts as a tactic to deflect the need of the PTO to do more itself. It
is a nice tactic, and one that I would do if I were you, but one that I
would fight if I wanted APS onto the Internet.
So I haven't mentioned your Web site on my news service because I think
it hurts somewhat chances to get the APS onto the Internet by offering a
potential alternative (though since I am crank and no one pays attention
to my news service, I am not sure why you want me to mention you).
>Perhaps if we, and orbit, and other "parasites" you always refer to, took
>donations we could make all of our products available free. But alas, how
>could we pay the hundreds of people we now employ?
Again, you complain about my self-serving statements on the Internet,
but your defense of the people you employ is just as self-serving. All
of the patent information providers make this argument, but like the buggy
whip makers, technology is rendering what you are doing somewhat obsolete.
Given the continual dropping of prices for disk drives, server power and
net bandwidth, it gets easier and easier for an effort based on donations
to at least put all of the patent text onto the Internet for free access
(i.e., there is no mandatory fee to access the information). With regards,
are we to accept that millions lose out on a benefit (APS on Internet) to
protect the jobs of a hundred? Besides, if one speaks of jobs, one could
argue that APS on Internet would spur enough new R&D to create more jobs
than would be lost.
I am sorry, but I have read many statements from people on this group
(both from this group and in the general press), and it is as self-serving
as anything I have posted. To some extent, some of these discussions (and
others in the patent world) remind me of pre-Reformation Europe, where the
priesthood then fought any changes that got the masses more involved with
the process.
Well, some of these arguments about giving people more tools and data
to do more on their own in the patent world are no different. Your arguments
(much the arguments of Paul at Questel) are those that I would want to hear
if I owned stock in MicroPatent. But you are defending a business practice
that technology is increasingly making it easier for a volunteer-donation
based group on the Internet to do, or even better, for the Patent Office to
do if it didn't have to worry about complaints from conduit providers.
The world of patent information providing and patent searching is going
to be changing greatly over the rest of the decade. Little of what I read
going from either community reflects this. Case in point, and a slight dig
at Derwent, which you accuse me of sucking up to. Last fall there was a
chemical information conference in Europe at which Paul Gardner gave a talk,
which was printed in one of the patent magazines. It was a nice talk, and
certainly one I would want to see if I owned stock in Derwent, but it did
not mention many of the newer technologies that make it easier for governments
to deliver patent information directly to their citizens. Now I know the
people at Derwent are familiar with all of these technologies, and can only
conclude that he didn't mention the possibilities of such things because
they can hurt Derwent (and you others) more than they can help. At the
same time, the lack of mentioning such possibiities detracts from his article.
Do I underestimate the difficulties in hooking up the patent offices
around the world to the Internet for free access by their citizens? Maybe,
but in time technology favors my arguments. Do you overestimate the
difficulties in doing the same? Sure, especially in public arguments opposing
efforts like making the APS available over the Internet for free which
threatens your job (so it might be best to worry about your job more than
mine - I have a nice business that welcomes APS on the Internet).
But I believe that there are many patent searchers, maybe even some on
PIUG, who look forward to seeing APS on the Internet for free because it
will help their practices (because in the end there are some things best
done by specialists). They can adapt and profit from changing times,
because after all, patent information is only one part of prior art searching.
You presuppose a unity of opinion on these issues, even within PIUG.
>So, all i can say to you is, GET A JOB, and please do not ruin this news
>group as you have ruined every other news group you have found on the net.
>peter tracy
So to the extent that some of you despise what I have to say on PIUG
(as do others on the USENET groups you say I have despoiled and polluted),
there are others, probably more, who feel the opposite. After all, most
of the new susbcribers to my Internet Patent News Service come from those
who seeing my polluting and despoiling postings. There are many different
business models for patent searching and patent data providing. Who is to
say that your worldview is the worldview?
There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for not making the APS
full text database freely available over the Internet, except the self-interes
t
of conduit providers. That you fight such efforts with whatever means
possible - I support wholeheartedly as your inalienable business right.
Please allow me to fight on the other side as emphatically as you do.
Greg Aharonian
P.S. If I say nice things about Derwent, it is because I greatly admire
the value added system that they have and offer and believe that only such
efforts will survive in the long run. They are successful because of the
contributions of people, not the contributions of technology that conduit
providers have relied on to charge $120/hour. I prefer people to technology.