siberkhem wordpress patent lessons

It is clear that intellectual property, in its various forms, has a direct and significant impact on society, regardless whether the intellectual property has been legally protected or not.  It impacts commerce by providing a general flux between the production of goods and services at a source and a “drain” point of consumption.  Intellectual property is an integral part of trade regulations and treaties.  Notably, a “free trade” zone is not quite so “free” when only the ones who possess the intellecual property rights are legally able to commercialize the products.

It affects economics of various societal groups in many ways.

It affects society directly by requiring education, in exchange for greater security (more advanced weapons, protection against natural disasters and pestilence), improved health (greater longevity and quality of life), increased food supply (adequate nourishment), enhanced mobility (means of transportation), etc.

When Germany and The Netherlands experimented brriefly with the abolishment of patents in the late 1860s (see The Economist of London which strongly supported this short-lived philosophical movement), they found that the need for progress in technological advancements was too powerful a pressure and could only be made to move forward by properly regulating the rights to individuals for their intellecual products.

It may even be said that in Europe, there is today an enhanced focus on regulating intellectual property.  Note the new Pirate Party” that now appears to have a seat in the EU parliament representing Sweden, that was formed after the recent court case against the developers of Pirate Bay peer-to-peer software.  Note that it appears that this court case did very little to stop intellectual property piracy on the Internet.

Anyone who has worked in a process plant, such as a chemical process or electrical power plant, has probably met many equipment operators who know very little of the technical basis for the equipment they operate.

Back in 1988, I gave a three-day course on the basics of distillation to a class of about 15 persons, including chemical equipment operators. I wrote the course and gave the instruction in Baton Rouge, LA. At the end of the course, I collected and read the evaluation forms left behind. It was quite clear that a few of the attendees had very strong opinions about my presentation of a few very elementary mathematical formulas during the course.

One person made it clear that he had no interest whatsoever in seeing anything resembling a mathematical formula. Seeing an “equals sign” made up of two short parallel horizontal segments, one placed on top of the other, (like =), during a course on basic distillation concepts, was a major turn-off. I got a negative rating from this reviewer.

At the other extreme, I got a good review rating from an equipment operator who said he actually appreciated learning a little about the mathematical concepts behind the chemical processes taking place hidden inside the equipment which he was responsible for operating.

So, I received mixed reviews. Go figure!

The analogy here is that a patent searcher does not necessarily “know” all the technology used to manipulate and mine the database data to uncover the relevant documents.  This includes verifying correctness of the database (corresponding to whether the chemical equipment operator knows what is really inside the equipment and whether it is what it should be).  The searcher simply finds matching patterns that appear to correspond to the desired inventive features, just as the equipment operator simply operates the equipment according to visual and other cues provided by the equipment  such as pressure and temperature gauges.

Thanks to the rapidly expanding amount of medical information being made available freely to anyone who seeks it out, it can be envisioned that new treatments for various ubiquitous diseases, including cancer in any of its various forms, can be “uncovered” by a diligent searcher. I am not aware of any documented evidence of this having happened, though.

It is clear that the information provided by the patent and NIH databases can be “mined” to come close to the “edge” of any possible emerging treatment.

Once someone determines that a “new” treatment may be a candidate for further exploration, however, they must then turn to certified authorities for further exploration, such as by clinical trials that are carefully regulated by governmental bodies including the FDA, etc. Thus, a person who does not have full certification to test certain disease-related medical treatments will find the “end of the road” at this point.

Therefore, a searcher lacking such certifications, but who may nonetheless be full technically qualified to evaluate potential treatmentoptions, will need to seek out a cooperative certified entity, which may be a clinician or research doctor or even a journalist, to proceed further.

It is also clear that the tools used in various aspects of medical research, are not all necessarily created or even necessarily actually used by fully certified medical individuals.

The patent search by a professional patent searcher is generally made up of two major parts, or (as I will metaphorically refer to them) “tiers”:
the data mining tier, followed by the reporting tier.

During the “data mining” tier, various distinct “phases” can be identified, such as selecting database(s), formulating a query, reviewing documents for relevancy, and using classification codes.

To the person who orders the patent search, it must be understood that the report does not necessarily present an absolute survey of relevant documents. There are several reasons for this, including misclassified documents, or documents that are relevant, but that will not be uncovered with the queries used in the search. That is why the person who orders the patent search must understand the various aspects of the search and review the report carefully to acertain that the seach effort was properly conducted to uncover the most relevant documents.