From noveck at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 14:31:02 2007 From: noveck at gmail.com (Beth Noveck) Date: Wed Apr 18 12:55:44 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] Community Patent Review Job Opening - Programmer Message-ID: Tim O'Reilly and Andy Oram were kind enough to circulate this = yesterday. I wanted to bring it to your attention so that you can, = please, forward to any programmer-friends. A more technical job = description is available. We're first and foremost looking for a = really top-notch coder with passion for social justice and a talent = with Ruby on Rails to add to our team. There's a core group of = programmers already hard at work in San Francisco. Hence we prefer = someone in the Bay Area. Please feel free to forward. Patent Reform Project Looking for RoR Help By Tim O'Reilly on January 24, 2007 We don't normally broadcast job postings, but Andy Oram writes about = one that could be of interest to our audience: The Community Patent Review (a phase of the better-known Peer to = Patent project) is seeking to hire a top-notch Ruby on Rails programmer. This is not an ordinary job posting; it=92s a chance to get paid for = public service. The project is developing software with the U.S. = Patent and Trademark Office, and is being closely watched in the UK = too. It implements a process to let experts in multiple fields to = submit prior art and other information related to patents. This project has the potential to alleviate some of the problems = universally recognized with patents (particularly patents that should = have rejected because of prior art) and can serve as a model for = other projects that open up government to the public.... As a Rails programmer, job candidates are expected to handle basic = JavaScript, CSS, and Ajax work as well. Residency in San Francisco is = preferred....The creator and coordinator of the project is Beth = Simone Noveck, a New York Law School professor. If you=92re interested, = please reach her at bnoveck (at domain) nyls.edu." http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/01/patent_reform_p.html http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2007/01/ = patent_reform_project_hiring_a.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/p2patent-developer/attachm= ents/20070125/b3c8c63e/attachment.htm From erichestenes at vikiwi.com Fri Jan 26 16:04:06 2007 From: erichestenes at vikiwi.com (Eric Hestenes) Date: Wed Apr 18 12:55:44 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] peer to patent development January update Message-ID: <20070127000406.61646.qmail@web51409.mail.yahoo.com> Hi everyone, = Here is a quick update on the software development effort for the Peer to= Patent software. In January the software development team spent time looki= ng more closely at various alternatives that have been proposed including J= ackrabbit, which is the content management solution used in JBOSS Portal, a= s well as the TOPAZ framework. = The TOPAZ framework (see http://www.plosone.org/home.action) has quite a = bit of appeal due to a substantial overlap in requirements and some very in= teresting tools such as the ability to annotate XML documents. In spite of = this there have also been some concerns with the technical complexity of th= e framework related to use of Mulgara and Fedora. There does not currently = appear to be a way to setup this data store as a high availability solution= , which is a project requirement. = = In the latter half of January the team has developed some prototypes usin= g Ruby on Rails for the purpose of testing out technical functions related = to tagging objects, searching, as well as threaded discussions. Several key= features we require are relatively simple to implement as a first cut usin= g Rails. For this reason we are proceeding to develop a functional prototyp= e with this technology. We are also actively prototyping the application HT= ML using javascript and the DOJO library. There are a number of features th= at we want to test out, and we expect the user interaction design to evolve= as a result of testing with a functional prototype. = = We will continue to explore java-based tools for selected problems and in= particular for the problem of storing patent application files and user-co= ntributed prior art files such as image files or word processing documents.= = = Some additional technical decisions are documented here: http://tools.dotank.nyls.edu/wiki/index.php/Peer_2_Patent/developer/use_c= ases_discussion/uc2_setup = For those interested in the visual interaction design, we have links to a= site map as well as visual mockups here: = = http://www.communitypatent.org/project_docs/2006/10/site_map_exampl.html = (warning the screen design PDF file is quite large) http://www.communitypatent.org/project_docs/2006/11/screen_design_m.html = The screen designs themselves are in flux; as we learn more about what is= required they will be evolving. Also, we are slowly working through the pr= ocess of creating detailed designs for each screen that appears in the site= map. We are posting updated mockups on about a bi-weekly cycle, so feel f= ree to check these links for updates in a couple weeks. = = In February we will begin focusing on what technical solution should be u= sed for the graphical visualizations of data that appear in our screen prot= otypes. We will also explore how this application might interoperate with o= ther applications in the community, and what mashup API functions might be = most useful. At this time mashups are not necessarily a requirement but we= 'd like to consider this with a goal to have a more robust technical design= . If there are ideas for mashups that would be valuable, please feel free s= hare them on this mailing list. = = From a release standpoint, we are targeting to have functional builds of = the system for March 1 and April 1. Hopefully a first look will be possible= around March 1 timeframe. = = As always, constructive questions, comments, and suggestions are welcome. = Thanks Eric Hestenes Technical Lead NYLS Community Patent Review project eric.hestenes@communitypatent.org = = -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/p2patent-developer/attachm= ents/20070126/1b9f1114/attachment.htm From luis at tieguy.org Sat Jan 27 08:21:55 2007 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Wed Apr 18 12:55:44 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] peer to patent development January update In-Reply-To: <20070127000406.61646.qmail@web51409.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20070127000406.61646.qmail@web51409.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440701270821u67ed40e8ufd23687d46616277@mail.gmail.com> On 1/26/07, Eric Hestenes wrote: > The TOPAZ framework (see > http://www.plosone.org/home.action) has quite a bit of > appeal due to a substantial overlap in requirements and some very > interesting tools such as the ability to annotate XML documents. In spite of > this there have also been some concerns with the technical complexity of the > framework related to use of Mulgara and Fedora. There does not currently > appear to be a way to setup this data store as a high availability solution, > which is a project requirement. I have no idea about Topaz in particular, but I'd question why HA is a project requirement at this point in time. The costs far outweigh the benefits for a site that will inevitably be small at first. I can't suggest reading http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives2/dont_scale_99999_uptime_is_for_walmart.php strongly enough. "What you need is to embrace the goal of getting someone to care enough about your product that they'll actually complain when its down. Once the first complains starts to trickle in, you know you're riding something right, and then you start caring about adding another percentage point or two." > In the latter half of January the team has developed some prototypes using > Ruby on Rails for the purpose of testing out technical functions related to > tagging objects, searching, as well as threaded discussions. Several key > features we require are relatively simple to implement as a first cut using > Rails. For this reason we are proceeding to develop a functional prototype > with this technology. We are also actively prototyping the application HTML > using javascript and the DOJO library. There are a number of features that > we want to test out, and we expect the user interaction design to evolve as > a result of testing with a functional prototype. This is *wonderful* to hear. Prototype-driven design is the way to go. > Some additional technical decisions are documented here: > http://tools.dotank.nyls.edu/wiki/index.php/Peer_2_Patent/developer/use_cases_discussion/uc2_setup > > For those interested in the visual interaction design, we have links to a > site map as well as visual mockups here: > > http://www.communitypatent.org/project_docs/2006/10/site_map_exampl.html > > (warning the screen design PDF file is quite large) > http://www.communitypatent.org/project_docs/2006/11/screen_design_m.html Thanks for these links. Generally, I'm very, very impressed by the mockups- lots of information and yet minimal mess, and seem to be well focused on the most important bits. A handful of comments: * Love the use of sparklines in the screen design mockups. Generally, the front page looks great- chock full of useful information without being overwhelming. * what is the 'timeline' bar in p. 1 of the screen design pdf? Is that how far along in the process the given patent is? * the 'reviewers' yellow dot might benefit from the 'complexity' information that linkedin uses in their user dot- i.e., changing not just size but showing an increased number of lines which indicate increased 'intertwingliness' as the dot gets bigger. (Hard to explain; just look at a linkedin user list to see what I mean.) * I like Google's practice of adding a thumbnail of the first page of the patent on the overview page. I space looks precious on your proposed overview page, but that page seems to provide something tangible/distinguishing for the patent. * I might suggest calling 'tags' 'labels' instead (as google often does); tags are such a technorati term, and I sense this is reaching out to a broader audience. * What is the rationale for tagging individual pieces of prior art? That seems overkill, somehow, but I'm sure I'm just missing something obvious. * in the prior art submission pages, 'check all submitted prior art' should be a hyperlink to some method of checking, or at least to a description of how to check. > At this time mashups are not necessarily a > requirement but we'd like to consider this with a goal to have a more robust > technical design. If there are ideas for mashups that would be valuable, > please feel free share them on this mailing list. An obvious 'mashup' might be with Google's patent search and/or the PTO's own search; a greasemonkey script of some sort that displays very basic peer2patent information (the sparklines, maybe?) when browsing 3rd-party patent search engines would be great to have. Could be a very simple API- provide patent number, get back fragment of XML with links + sparklines images. > From a release standpoint, we are targeting to have functional builds of the > system for March 1 and April 1. Hopefully a first look will be possible > around March 1 timeframe. Good luck! Hope my small contributions are of some use. Luis From noveck at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 10:49:29 2007 From: noveck at gmail.com (Beth Noveck) Date: Wed Apr 18 12:55:44 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] peer to patent development January update In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440701270821u67ed40e8ufd23687d46616277@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070127000406.61646.qmail@web51409.mail.yahoo.com> <2cb10c440701270821u67ed40e8ufd23687d46616277@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks - all incredibly helpful and specific feedback. No good deed goes unpunished, you'll get a copy of some of the newest mockups this week. We are very much believers in iterative developer. We only know what works (and what doesn't) until we poke it and, more important, until real users poke it. That's why the emphasis is on making all the data transparent and accessible so that people can fix what they don't like, create better mash-ups and show what data is most useful. Please keep the feedback coming and we'll give you plenty to critique in the very next couple of weeks. We'll also want your input as we move forward on the kinds of tools and resources that will be helpful to non-lawyer technies and to non-legal code slingers to participate in this conversation. More to follow. Best, Beth On Jan 27, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Luis Villa wrote: > On 1/26/07, Eric Hestenes wrote: >> The TOPAZ framework (see >> http://www.plosone.org/home.action) has quite a bit of >> appeal due to a substantial overlap in requirements and some very >> interesting tools such as the ability to annotate XML documents. >> In spite of >> this there have also been some concerns with the technical >> complexity of the >> framework related to use of Mulgara and Fedora. There does not >> currently >> appear to be a way to setup this data store as a high availability >> solution, >> which is a project requirement. > > I have no idea about Topaz in particular, but I'd question why HA is a > project requirement at this point in time. The costs far outweigh the > benefits for a site that will inevitably be small at first. I can't > suggest reading > http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives2/ > dont_scale_99999_uptime_is_for_walmart.php > strongly enough. > > "What you need is to embrace the goal of getting someone to care > enough about your product that they'll actually complain when its > down. Once the first complains starts to trickle in, you know you're > riding something right, and then you start caring about adding another > percentage point or two." > >> In the latter half of January the team has developed some >> prototypes using >> Ruby on Rails for the purpose of testing out technical functions >> related to >> tagging objects, searching, as well as threaded discussions. >> Several key >> features we require are relatively simple to implement as a first >> cut using >> Rails. For this reason we are proceeding to develop a functional >> prototype >> with this technology. We are also actively prototyping the >> application HTML >> using javascript and the DOJO library. There are a number of >> features that >> we want to test out, and we expect the user interaction design to >> evolve as >> a result of testing with a functional prototype. > > This is *wonderful* to hear. Prototype-driven design is the way to go. > >> Some additional technical decisions are documented here: >> http://tools.dotank.nyls.edu/wiki/index.php/Peer_2_Patent/ >> developer/use_cases_discussion/uc2_setup >> >> For those interested in the visual interaction design, we have >> links to a >> site map as well as visual mockups here: >> >> http://www.communitypatent.org/project_docs/2006/10/ >> site_map_exampl.html >> >> (warning the screen design PDF file is quite large) >> http://www.communitypatent.org/project_docs/2006/11/ >> screen_design_m.html > > Thanks for these links. Generally, I'm very, very impressed by the > mockups- lots of information and yet minimal mess, and seem to be well > focused on the most important bits. A handful of comments: > > * Love the use of sparklines in the screen design mockups. Generally, > the front page looks great- chock full of useful information without > being overwhelming. > * what is the 'timeline' bar in p. 1 of the screen design pdf? Is that > how far along in the process the given patent is? > * the 'reviewers' yellow dot might benefit from the 'complexity' > information that linkedin uses in their user dot- i.e., changing not > just size but showing an increased number of lines which indicate > increased 'intertwingliness' as the dot gets bigger. (Hard to explain; > just look at a linkedin user list to see what I mean.) > * I like Google's practice of adding a thumbnail of the first page of > the patent on the overview page. I space looks precious on your > proposed overview page, but that page seems to provide something > tangible/distinguishing for the patent. > * I might suggest calling 'tags' 'labels' instead (as google often > does); tags are such a technorati term, and I sense this is reaching > out to a broader audience. > * What is the rationale for tagging individual pieces of prior art? > That seems overkill, somehow, but I'm sure I'm just missing something > obvious. > * in the prior art submission pages, 'check all submitted prior art' > should be a hyperlink to some method of checking, or at least to a > description of how to check. > >> At this time mashups are not necessarily a >> requirement but we'd like to consider this with a goal to have a >> more robust >> technical design. If there are ideas for mashups that would be >> valuable, >> please feel free share them on this mailing list. > > An obvious 'mashup' might be with Google's patent search and/or the > PTO's own search; a greasemonkey script of some sort that displays > very basic peer2patent information (the sparklines, maybe?) when > browsing 3rd-party patent search engines would be great to have. Could > be a very simple API- provide patent number, get back fragment of XML > with links + sparklines images. > >> From a release standpoint, we are targeting to have functional >> builds of the >> system for March 1 and April 1. Hopefully a first look will be >> possible >> around March 1 timeframe. > > Good luck! Hope my small contributions are of some use. > > Luis > _______________________________________________ > p2patent-developer mailing list > p2patent-developer@lists.osdl.org > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/p2patent-developer From luis at tieguy.org Sun Jan 28 20:48:14 2007 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Wed Apr 18 12:55:44 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] peer to patent development January update In-Reply-To: References: <20070127000406.61646.qmail@web51409.mail.yahoo.com> <2cb10c440701270821u67ed40e8ufd23687d46616277@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440701282048nf6f263ah15e8c51194271481@mail.gmail.com> On 1/28/07, Beth Noveck wrote: > Thanks - all incredibly helpful and specific feedback. No good deed > goes unpunished, you'll get a copy of some of the newest mockups this > week. Look forward to them; glad the first batch of feedback was at least partially useful. Luis From erichestenes at vikiwi.com Tue Jan 30 16:19:14 2007 From: erichestenes at vikiwi.com (Eric Hestenes) Date: Wed Apr 18 12:55:44 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] peer to patent development January update In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440701270821u67ed40e8ufd23687d46616277@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <196034.42776.qm@web51414.mail.yahoo.com> Luis, = Thanks again for all your thoughtful feedback. Here are some followup com= ments. = > I have no idea about Topaz in particular, but I'd question why HA is a > project requirement at this point in time. The costs far outweigh the > benefits for a site that will inevitably be small at first. I can't > suggest reading... = Fair point. Another consideration is the ability for various participants= such as data center staff to understand the solution well enough to suppor= t it. It is hard to support something when you're not really up to speed on= it, and we need to learn more at this point. = > * what is the 'timeline' bar in p. 1 of the screen design pdf? Is that > how far along in the process the given patent is? = This represents the amount of remaining time left for community input on = this patent application. Sounds like that wasn't crystal clear in the desig= n, so maybe we need to improve that graphic or the wording. = = = > * I might suggest calling 'tags' 'labels' instead (as google often > does); tags are such a technorati term, and I sense this is reaching > out to a broader audience. = I agree that "tags" is overloaded, but "labels" also seems cryptic. Maybe= we can use some English here. Open to suggestions. We actually have severa= l different uses for tag-style input, so this is a good one to get right. E= .g. "List keywords for Application" and "List keywords for Prior Art", or s= omething similar. = > An obvious 'mashup' might be with Google's patent search and/or the > PTO's own search; a greasemonkey script of some sort that displays > very basic peer2patent information (the sparklines, maybe?) when > browsing 3rd-party patent search engines would be great to have. Could > be a very simple API- provide patent number, get back fragment of XML > with links + sparklines images. = Can you clarify how this mashup would work? What data is being passed aro= und? = = Google has issued patents and does not have patent applications (so far),= so they will not have one of our apps displayed in their world. On the oth= er hand, we will have references to issued patents, which are on google and= other web site. = = What I thought might make sense was a way to mark an issued patent inside= a 3rd party app like a bookmark, and then import it for use as prior art, = giving credit back to the 3rd party source. = = = Thanks = Eric Hestenes Technical Lead NYLS Community Patent Review project eric.hestenes@communitypatent.org = = -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/p2patent-developer/attachm= ents/20070130/c3151b2b/attachment.htm From luis at tieguy.org Tue Jan 30 17:58:03 2007 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Wed Apr 18 12:55:44 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] peer to patent development January update In-Reply-To: <196034.42776.qm@web51414.mail.yahoo.com> References: <2cb10c440701270821u67ed40e8ufd23687d46616277@mail.gmail.com> <196034.42776.qm@web51414.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440701301758p398603faob8310216ed438668@mail.gmail.com> On 1/30/07, Eric Hestenes wrote: > Luis, > > Thanks again for all your thoughtful feedback. My pleasure; I'd really like to see this succeed- it is clearly needed. Tangent: everyone here should have seen the bluej/microsoft thing that went on over the weekend; if not, best summary I can find is here: http://271patent.blogspot.com/2007/01/ad-hoc-community-patent-review-and.html A good question to ask might be- what role would p2patent have played had it been up and running before this started? I'm really not sure if it is a great question (given the speed with which that particular meme moved) but something to ponder, at any rate. > Here are some followup > comments. > > > I have no idea about Topaz in particular, but I'd question why HA is a > > project requirement at this point in time. The costs far outweigh the > > benefits for a site that will inevitably be small at first. I can't > > suggest reading... > > Fair point. Another consideration is the ability for various participants > such as data center staff to understand the solution well enough to support > it. It is hard to support something when you're not really up to speed on > it, and we need to learn more at this point. Both data center and future generations of coders. The more standards-based your backend is, the better off everyone is. (I'm sure this is old news to Eric, but for those reading along, I strongly suggest http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2006/11/17/biggest-community-wins/ which talks about how having bigger adoption/bigger community is a bonus in all sorts of ways.) > > * what is the 'timeline' bar in p. 1 of the screen design pdf? Is that > > how far along in the process the given patent is? > > This represents the amount of remaining time left for community input on > this patent application. Sounds like that wasn't crystal clear in the > design, so maybe we need to improve that graphic or the wording. Ah. Maybe 'time remaining', and have it right to left, instead of left to right, such that shorter bars (perhaps with a color change as well?) indicate shorter time remaining? (If I understand correctly, the current mockups suggest that longer bar means further along in the process, means less time remaing.) > > * I might suggest calling 'tags' 'labels' instead (as google often > > does); tags are such a technorati term, and I sense this is reaching > > out to a broader audience. > > I agree that "tags" is overloaded, but "labels" also seems cryptic. Maybe we > can use some English here. Open to suggestions. We actually have several > different uses for tag-style input, so this is a good one to get right. E.g. > "List keywords for Application" and "List keywords for Prior Art", or > something similar. I'm afraid I have no great advice here- all the options are suboptimal in some way or another. Would seem to be a great candidate for user testing if IBM's usability people have some cycles to spare. > > An obvious 'mashup' might be with Google's patent search and/or the > > PTO's own search; a greasemonkey script of some sort that displays > > very basic peer2patent information (the sparklines, maybe?) when > > browsing 3rd-party patent search engines would be great to have. Could > > be a very simple API- provide patent number, get back fragment of XML > > with links + sparklines images. > > Can you clarify how this mashup would work? What data is being passed > around? I guess I'm envisioning this as less mashup and more plugin? Basic idea is that if I were browsing a patent somewhere else, a greasemonkey script, firefox plugin, etc., could grab the patent application number, ask p2patent for information, and display somewhere on the page a small box showing the status of the application at p2patent. Sorry if I'm not making it clear; it is a pretty half-baked idea ;) > Google has issued patents and does not have patent applications (so far), so > they will not have one of our apps displayed in their world. On the other > hand, we will have references to issued patents, which are on google and > other web site. ah, right, forgot they don't have applications. > What I thought might make sense was a way to mark an issued patent inside a > 3rd party app like a bookmark, and then import it for use as prior art, > giving credit back to the 3rd party source. Sounds like a great idea. Need not even be a patent, no? i.e., in the BlueJ/Microsoft case, I'd want to find a description of BlueJ's functionality and then somehow shoot that into p2patent. You might want to look at Zotero or Stylefeeder's javascript [ http://www.stylefeeder.com/bookmark-options.html ] - two very different approaches for capturing data out of a page and storing it elsewhere. Again, hope this is useful- Luis From thomaskplunkett at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 20:56:59 2007 From: thomaskplunkett at gmail.com (Thomas Plunkett) Date: Wed Apr 18 12:55:44 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] peer to patent development January update In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440701301758p398603faob8310216ed438668@mail.gmail.com> References: <2cb10c440701270821u67ed40e8ufd23687d46616277@mail.gmail.com> <196034.42776.qm@web51414.mail.yahoo.com> <2cb10c440701301758p398603faob8310216ed438668@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6d001dc70701312056q39770b8al68190c0b8b6a1e8d@mail.gmail.com> Luis, My answer to your question... The BlueJ/Microsoft issue was the visible tip of the iceberg. The prior art was so blatant and had such visibilty amongst the community that the company had to take action on it. But most applications are below the visibility level for the community (just as an iceberg is mostly below the water line). P2Patent will hopefully get the right people to look at those lower visibility applications and find relevant prior art. Tom On 1/30/07, Luis Villa wrote: > Tangent: everyone here should have seen the bluej/microsoft thing that > went on over the weekend; if not, best summary I can find is here: > http://271patent.blogspot.com/2007/01/ad-hoc-community-patent-review-and.html > > A good question to ask might be- what role would p2patent have played > had it been up and running before this started? I'm really not sure if > it is a great question (given the speed with which that particular > meme moved) but something to ponder, at any rate. > From noveck at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 14:31:02 2007 From: noveck at gmail.com (Beth Noveck) Date: Wed Apr 18 17:42:43 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] Community Patent Review Job Opening - Programmer Message-ID: Tim O'Reilly and Andy Oram were kind enough to circulate this = yesterday. I wanted to bring it to your attention so that you can, = please, forward to any programmer-friends. A more technical job = description is available. We're first and foremost looking for a = really top-notch coder with passion for social justice and a talent = with Ruby on Rails to add to our team. There's a core group of = programmers already hard at work in San Francisco. Hence we prefer = someone in the Bay Area. Please feel free to forward. Patent Reform Project Looking for RoR Help By Tim O'Reilly on January 24, 2007 We don't normally broadcast job postings, but Andy Oram writes about = one that could be of interest to our audience: The Community Patent Review (a phase of the better-known Peer to = Patent project) is seeking to hire a top-notch Ruby on Rails programmer. This is not an ordinary job posting; it=92s a chance to get paid for = public service. The project is developing software with the U.S. = Patent and Trademark Office, and is being closely watched in the UK = too. It implements a process to let experts in multiple fields to = submit prior art and other information related to patents. This project has the potential to alleviate some of the problems = universally recognized with patents (particularly patents that should = have rejected because of prior art) and can serve as a model for = other projects that open up government to the public.... As a Rails programmer, job candidates are expected to handle basic = JavaScript, CSS, and Ajax work as well. Residency in San Francisco is = preferred....The creator and coordinator of the project is Beth = Simone Noveck, a New York Law School professor. If you=92re interested, = please reach her at bnoveck (at domain) nyls.edu." http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/01/patent_reform_p.html http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2007/01/ = patent_reform_project_hiring_a.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/p2patent-developer/attachm= ents/20070125/b3c8c63e/attachment-0001.htm From erichestenes at vikiwi.com Fri Jan 26 16:04:06 2007 From: erichestenes at vikiwi.com (Eric Hestenes) Date: Wed Apr 18 17:42:43 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] peer to patent development January update Message-ID: <20070127000406.61646.qmail@web51409.mail.yahoo.com> Hi everyone, = Here is a quick update on the software development effort for the Peer to= Patent software. In January the software development team spent time looki= ng more closely at various alternatives that have been proposed including J= ackrabbit, which is the content management solution used in JBOSS Portal, a= s well as the TOPAZ framework. = The TOPAZ framework (see http://www.plosone.org/home.action) has quite a = bit of appeal due to a substantial overlap in requirements and some very in= teresting tools such as the ability to annotate XML documents. In spite of = this there have also been some concerns with the technical complexity of th= e framework related to use of Mulgara and Fedora. There does not currently = appear to be a way to setup this data store as a high availability solution= , which is a project requirement. = = In the latter half of January the team has developed some prototypes usin= g Ruby on Rails for the purpose of testing out technical functions related = to tagging objects, searching, as well as threaded discussions. Several key= features we require are relatively simple to implement as a first cut usin= g Rails. For this reason we are proceeding to develop a functional prototyp= e with this technology. We are also actively prototyping the application HT= ML using javascript and the DOJO library. There are a number of features th= at we want to test out, and we expect the user interaction design to evolve= as a result of testing with a functional prototype. = = We will continue to explore java-based tools for selected problems and in= particular for the problem of storing patent application files and user-co= ntributed prior art files such as image files or word processing documents.= = = Some additional technical decisions are documented here: http://tools.dotank.nyls.edu/wiki/index.php/Peer_2_Patent/developer/use_c= ases_discussion/uc2_setup = For those interested in the visual interaction design, we have links to a= site map as well as visual mockups here: = = http://www.communitypatent.org/project_docs/2006/10/site_map_exampl.html = (warning the screen design PDF file is quite large) http://www.communitypatent.org/project_docs/2006/11/screen_design_m.html = The screen designs themselves are in flux; as we learn more about what is= required they will be evolving. Also, we are slowly working through the pr= ocess of creating detailed designs for each screen that appears in the site= map. We are posting updated mockups on about a bi-weekly cycle, so feel f= ree to check these links for updates in a couple weeks. = = In February we will begin focusing on what technical solution should be u= sed for the graphical visualizations of data that appear in our screen prot= otypes. We will also explore how this application might interoperate with o= ther applications in the community, and what mashup API functions might be = most useful. At this time mashups are not necessarily a requirement but we= 'd like to consider this with a goal to have a more robust technical design= . If there are ideas for mashups that would be valuable, please feel free s= hare them on this mailing list. = = From a release standpoint, we are targeting to have functional builds of = the system for March 1 and April 1. Hopefully a first look will be possible= around March 1 timeframe. = = As always, constructive questions, comments, and suggestions are welcome. = Thanks Eric Hestenes Technical Lead NYLS Community Patent Review project eric.hestenes@communitypatent.org = = -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/p2patent-developer/attachm= ents/20070126/1b9f1114/attachment-0001.htm From luis at tieguy.org Sat Jan 27 08:21:55 2007 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Wed Apr 18 17:42:43 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] peer to patent development January update In-Reply-To: <20070127000406.61646.qmail@web51409.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20070127000406.61646.qmail@web51409.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440701270821u67ed40e8ufd23687d46616277@mail.gmail.com> On 1/26/07, Eric Hestenes wrote: > The TOPAZ framework (see > http://www.plosone.org/home.action) has quite a bit of > appeal due to a substantial overlap in requirements and some very > interesting tools such as the ability to annotate XML documents. In spite of > this there have also been some concerns with the technical complexity of the > framework related to use of Mulgara and Fedora. There does not currently > appear to be a way to setup this data store as a high availability solution, > which is a project requirement. I have no idea about Topaz in particular, but I'd question why HA is a project requirement at this point in time. The costs far outweigh the benefits for a site that will inevitably be small at first. I can't suggest reading http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives2/dont_scale_99999_uptime_is_for_walmart.php strongly enough. "What you need is to embrace the goal of getting someone to care enough about your product that they'll actually complain when its down. Once the first complains starts to trickle in, you know you're riding something right, and then you start caring about adding another percentage point or two." > In the latter half of January the team has developed some prototypes using > Ruby on Rails for the purpose of testing out technical functions related to > tagging objects, searching, as well as threaded discussions. Several key > features we require are relatively simple to implement as a first cut using > Rails. For this reason we are proceeding to develop a functional prototype > with this technology. We are also actively prototyping the application HTML > using javascript and the DOJO library. There are a number of features that > we want to test out, and we expect the user interaction design to evolve as > a result of testing with a functional prototype. This is *wonderful* to hear. Prototype-driven design is the way to go. > Some additional technical decisions are documented here: > http://tools.dotank.nyls.edu/wiki/index.php/Peer_2_Patent/developer/use_cases_discussion/uc2_setup > > For those interested in the visual interaction design, we have links to a > site map as well as visual mockups here: > > http://www.communitypatent.org/project_docs/2006/10/site_map_exampl.html > > (warning the screen design PDF file is quite large) > http://www.communitypatent.org/project_docs/2006/11/screen_design_m.html Thanks for these links. Generally, I'm very, very impressed by the mockups- lots of information and yet minimal mess, and seem to be well focused on the most important bits. A handful of comments: * Love the use of sparklines in the screen design mockups. Generally, the front page looks great- chock full of useful information without being overwhelming. * what is the 'timeline' bar in p. 1 of the screen design pdf? Is that how far along in the process the given patent is? * the 'reviewers' yellow dot might benefit from the 'complexity' information that linkedin uses in their user dot- i.e., changing not just size but showing an increased number of lines which indicate increased 'intertwingliness' as the dot gets bigger. (Hard to explain; just look at a linkedin user list to see what I mean.) * I like Google's practice of adding a thumbnail of the first page of the patent on the overview page. I space looks precious on your proposed overview page, but that page seems to provide something tangible/distinguishing for the patent. * I might suggest calling 'tags' 'labels' instead (as google often does); tags are such a technorati term, and I sense this is reaching out to a broader audience. * What is the rationale for tagging individual pieces of prior art? That seems overkill, somehow, but I'm sure I'm just missing something obvious. * in the prior art submission pages, 'check all submitted prior art' should be a hyperlink to some method of checking, or at least to a description of how to check. > At this time mashups are not necessarily a > requirement but we'd like to consider this with a goal to have a more robust > technical design. If there are ideas for mashups that would be valuable, > please feel free share them on this mailing list. An obvious 'mashup' might be with Google's patent search and/or the PTO's own search; a greasemonkey script of some sort that displays very basic peer2patent information (the sparklines, maybe?) when browsing 3rd-party patent search engines would be great to have. Could be a very simple API- provide patent number, get back fragment of XML with links + sparklines images. > From a release standpoint, we are targeting to have functional builds of the > system for March 1 and April 1. Hopefully a first look will be possible > around March 1 timeframe. Good luck! Hope my small contributions are of some use. Luis From noveck at gmail.com Sun Jan 28 10:49:29 2007 From: noveck at gmail.com (Beth Noveck) Date: Wed Apr 18 17:42:43 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] peer to patent development January update In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440701270821u67ed40e8ufd23687d46616277@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070127000406.61646.qmail@web51409.mail.yahoo.com> <2cb10c440701270821u67ed40e8ufd23687d46616277@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks - all incredibly helpful and specific feedback. No good deed goes unpunished, you'll get a copy of some of the newest mockups this week. We are very much believers in iterative developer. We only know what works (and what doesn't) until we poke it and, more important, until real users poke it. That's why the emphasis is on making all the data transparent and accessible so that people can fix what they don't like, create better mash-ups and show what data is most useful. Please keep the feedback coming and we'll give you plenty to critique in the very next couple of weeks. We'll also want your input as we move forward on the kinds of tools and resources that will be helpful to non-lawyer technies and to non-legal code slingers to participate in this conversation. More to follow. Best, Beth On Jan 27, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Luis Villa wrote: > On 1/26/07, Eric Hestenes wrote: >> The TOPAZ framework (see >> http://www.plosone.org/home.action) has quite a bit of >> appeal due to a substantial overlap in requirements and some very >> interesting tools such as the ability to annotate XML documents. >> In spite of >> this there have also been some concerns with the technical >> complexity of the >> framework related to use of Mulgara and Fedora. There does not >> currently >> appear to be a way to setup this data store as a high availability >> solution, >> which is a project requirement. > > I have no idea about Topaz in particular, but I'd question why HA is a > project requirement at this point in time. The costs far outweigh the > benefits for a site that will inevitably be small at first. I can't > suggest reading > http://www.37signals.com/svn/archives2/ > dont_scale_99999_uptime_is_for_walmart.php > strongly enough. > > "What you need is to embrace the goal of getting someone to care > enough about your product that they'll actually complain when its > down. Once the first complains starts to trickle in, you know you're > riding something right, and then you start caring about adding another > percentage point or two." > >> In the latter half of January the team has developed some >> prototypes using >> Ruby on Rails for the purpose of testing out technical functions >> related to >> tagging objects, searching, as well as threaded discussions. >> Several key >> features we require are relatively simple to implement as a first >> cut using >> Rails. For this reason we are proceeding to develop a functional >> prototype >> with this technology. We are also actively prototyping the >> application HTML >> using javascript and the DOJO library. There are a number of >> features that >> we want to test out, and we expect the user interaction design to >> evolve as >> a result of testing with a functional prototype. > > This is *wonderful* to hear. Prototype-driven design is the way to go. > >> Some additional technical decisions are documented here: >> http://tools.dotank.nyls.edu/wiki/index.php/Peer_2_Patent/ >> developer/use_cases_discussion/uc2_setup >> >> For those interested in the visual interaction design, we have >> links to a >> site map as well as visual mockups here: >> >> http://www.communitypatent.org/project_docs/2006/10/ >> site_map_exampl.html >> >> (warning the screen design PDF file is quite large) >> http://www.communitypatent.org/project_docs/2006/11/ >> screen_design_m.html > > Thanks for these links. Generally, I'm very, very impressed by the > mockups- lots of information and yet minimal mess, and seem to be well > focused on the most important bits. A handful of comments: > > * Love the use of sparklines in the screen design mockups. Generally, > the front page looks great- chock full of useful information without > being overwhelming. > * what is the 'timeline' bar in p. 1 of the screen design pdf? Is that > how far along in the process the given patent is? > * the 'reviewers' yellow dot might benefit from the 'complexity' > information that linkedin uses in their user dot- i.e., changing not > just size but showing an increased number of lines which indicate > increased 'intertwingliness' as the dot gets bigger. (Hard to explain; > just look at a linkedin user list to see what I mean.) > * I like Google's practice of adding a thumbnail of the first page of > the patent on the overview page. I space looks precious on your > proposed overview page, but that page seems to provide something > tangible/distinguishing for the patent. > * I might suggest calling 'tags' 'labels' instead (as google often > does); tags are such a technorati term, and I sense this is reaching > out to a broader audience. > * What is the rationale for tagging individual pieces of prior art? > That seems overkill, somehow, but I'm sure I'm just missing something > obvious. > * in the prior art submission pages, 'check all submitted prior art' > should be a hyperlink to some method of checking, or at least to a > description of how to check. > >> At this time mashups are not necessarily a >> requirement but we'd like to consider this with a goal to have a >> more robust >> technical design. If there are ideas for mashups that would be >> valuable, >> please feel free share them on this mailing list. > > An obvious 'mashup' might be with Google's patent search and/or the > PTO's own search; a greasemonkey script of some sort that displays > very basic peer2patent information (the sparklines, maybe?) when > browsing 3rd-party patent search engines would be great to have. Could > be a very simple API- provide patent number, get back fragment of XML > with links + sparklines images. > >> From a release standpoint, we are targeting to have functional >> builds of the >> system for March 1 and April 1. Hopefully a first look will be >> possible >> around March 1 timeframe. > > Good luck! Hope my small contributions are of some use. > > Luis > _______________________________________________ > p2patent-developer mailing list > p2patent-developer@lists.osdl.org > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/p2patent-developer From luis at tieguy.org Sun Jan 28 20:48:14 2007 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Wed Apr 18 17:42:43 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] peer to patent development January update In-Reply-To: References: <20070127000406.61646.qmail@web51409.mail.yahoo.com> <2cb10c440701270821u67ed40e8ufd23687d46616277@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440701282048nf6f263ah15e8c51194271481@mail.gmail.com> On 1/28/07, Beth Noveck wrote: > Thanks - all incredibly helpful and specific feedback. No good deed > goes unpunished, you'll get a copy of some of the newest mockups this > week. Look forward to them; glad the first batch of feedback was at least partially useful. Luis From erichestenes at vikiwi.com Tue Jan 30 16:19:14 2007 From: erichestenes at vikiwi.com (Eric Hestenes) Date: Wed Apr 18 17:42:43 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] peer to patent development January update In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440701270821u67ed40e8ufd23687d46616277@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <196034.42776.qm@web51414.mail.yahoo.com> Luis, = Thanks again for all your thoughtful feedback. Here are some followup com= ments. = > I have no idea about Topaz in particular, but I'd question why HA is a > project requirement at this point in time. The costs far outweigh the > benefits for a site that will inevitably be small at first. I can't > suggest reading... = Fair point. Another consideration is the ability for various participants= such as data center staff to understand the solution well enough to suppor= t it. It is hard to support something when you're not really up to speed on= it, and we need to learn more at this point. = > * what is the 'timeline' bar in p. 1 of the screen design pdf? Is that > how far along in the process the given patent is? = This represents the amount of remaining time left for community input on = this patent application. Sounds like that wasn't crystal clear in the desig= n, so maybe we need to improve that graphic or the wording. = = = > * I might suggest calling 'tags' 'labels' instead (as google often > does); tags are such a technorati term, and I sense this is reaching > out to a broader audience. = I agree that "tags" is overloaded, but "labels" also seems cryptic. Maybe= we can use some English here. Open to suggestions. We actually have severa= l different uses for tag-style input, so this is a good one to get right. E= .g. "List keywords for Application" and "List keywords for Prior Art", or s= omething similar. = > An obvious 'mashup' might be with Google's patent search and/or the > PTO's own search; a greasemonkey script of some sort that displays > very basic peer2patent information (the sparklines, maybe?) when > browsing 3rd-party patent search engines would be great to have. Could > be a very simple API- provide patent number, get back fragment of XML > with links + sparklines images. = Can you clarify how this mashup would work? What data is being passed aro= und? = = Google has issued patents and does not have patent applications (so far),= so they will not have one of our apps displayed in their world. On the oth= er hand, we will have references to issued patents, which are on google and= other web site. = = What I thought might make sense was a way to mark an issued patent inside= a 3rd party app like a bookmark, and then import it for use as prior art, = giving credit back to the 3rd party source. = = = Thanks = Eric Hestenes Technical Lead NYLS Community Patent Review project eric.hestenes@communitypatent.org = = -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/p2patent-developer/attachm= ents/20070130/c3151b2b/attachment-0001.htm From luis at tieguy.org Tue Jan 30 17:58:03 2007 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Wed Apr 18 17:42:43 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] peer to patent development January update In-Reply-To: <196034.42776.qm@web51414.mail.yahoo.com> References: <2cb10c440701270821u67ed40e8ufd23687d46616277@mail.gmail.com> <196034.42776.qm@web51414.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2cb10c440701301758p398603faob8310216ed438668@mail.gmail.com> On 1/30/07, Eric Hestenes wrote: > Luis, > > Thanks again for all your thoughtful feedback. My pleasure; I'd really like to see this succeed- it is clearly needed. Tangent: everyone here should have seen the bluej/microsoft thing that went on over the weekend; if not, best summary I can find is here: http://271patent.blogspot.com/2007/01/ad-hoc-community-patent-review-and.html A good question to ask might be- what role would p2patent have played had it been up and running before this started? I'm really not sure if it is a great question (given the speed with which that particular meme moved) but something to ponder, at any rate. > Here are some followup > comments. > > > I have no idea about Topaz in particular, but I'd question why HA is a > > project requirement at this point in time. The costs far outweigh the > > benefits for a site that will inevitably be small at first. I can't > > suggest reading... > > Fair point. Another consideration is the ability for various participants > such as data center staff to understand the solution well enough to support > it. It is hard to support something when you're not really up to speed on > it, and we need to learn more at this point. Both data center and future generations of coders. The more standards-based your backend is, the better off everyone is. (I'm sure this is old news to Eric, but for those reading along, I strongly suggest http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2006/11/17/biggest-community-wins/ which talks about how having bigger adoption/bigger community is a bonus in all sorts of ways.) > > * what is the 'timeline' bar in p. 1 of the screen design pdf? Is that > > how far along in the process the given patent is? > > This represents the amount of remaining time left for community input on > this patent application. Sounds like that wasn't crystal clear in the > design, so maybe we need to improve that graphic or the wording. Ah. Maybe 'time remaining', and have it right to left, instead of left to right, such that shorter bars (perhaps with a color change as well?) indicate shorter time remaining? (If I understand correctly, the current mockups suggest that longer bar means further along in the process, means less time remaing.) > > * I might suggest calling 'tags' 'labels' instead (as google often > > does); tags are such a technorati term, and I sense this is reaching > > out to a broader audience. > > I agree that "tags" is overloaded, but "labels" also seems cryptic. Maybe we > can use some English here. Open to suggestions. We actually have several > different uses for tag-style input, so this is a good one to get right. E.g. > "List keywords for Application" and "List keywords for Prior Art", or > something similar. I'm afraid I have no great advice here- all the options are suboptimal in some way or another. Would seem to be a great candidate for user testing if IBM's usability people have some cycles to spare. > > An obvious 'mashup' might be with Google's patent search and/or the > > PTO's own search; a greasemonkey script of some sort that displays > > very basic peer2patent information (the sparklines, maybe?) when > > browsing 3rd-party patent search engines would be great to have. Could > > be a very simple API- provide patent number, get back fragment of XML > > with links + sparklines images. > > Can you clarify how this mashup would work? What data is being passed > around? I guess I'm envisioning this as less mashup and more plugin? Basic idea is that if I were browsing a patent somewhere else, a greasemonkey script, firefox plugin, etc., could grab the patent application number, ask p2patent for information, and display somewhere on the page a small box showing the status of the application at p2patent. Sorry if I'm not making it clear; it is a pretty half-baked idea ;) > Google has issued patents and does not have patent applications (so far), so > they will not have one of our apps displayed in their world. On the other > hand, we will have references to issued patents, which are on google and > other web site. ah, right, forgot they don't have applications. > What I thought might make sense was a way to mark an issued patent inside a > 3rd party app like a bookmark, and then import it for use as prior art, > giving credit back to the 3rd party source. Sounds like a great idea. Need not even be a patent, no? i.e., in the BlueJ/Microsoft case, I'd want to find a description of BlueJ's functionality and then somehow shoot that into p2patent. You might want to look at Zotero or Stylefeeder's javascript [ http://www.stylefeeder.com/bookmark-options.html ] - two very different approaches for capturing data out of a page and storing it elsewhere. Again, hope this is useful- Luis From thomaskplunkett at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 20:56:59 2007 From: thomaskplunkett at gmail.com (Thomas Plunkett) Date: Wed Apr 18 17:42:43 2007 Subject: [p2patent-developer] peer to patent development January update In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440701301758p398603faob8310216ed438668@mail.gmail.com> References: <2cb10c440701270821u67ed40e8ufd23687d46616277@mail.gmail.com> <196034.42776.qm@web51414.mail.yahoo.com> <2cb10c440701301758p398603faob8310216ed438668@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6d001dc70701312056q39770b8al68190c0b8b6a1e8d@mail.gmail.com> Luis, My answer to your question... The BlueJ/Microsoft issue was the visible tip of the iceberg. The prior art was so blatant and had such visibilty amongst the community that the company had to take action on it. But most applications are below the visibility level for the community (just as an iceberg is mostly below the water line). P2Patent will hopefully get the right people to look at those lower visibility applications and find relevant prior art. Tom On 1/30/07, Luis Villa wrote: > Tangent: everyone here should have seen the bluej/microsoft thing that > went on over the weekend; if not, best summary I can find is here: > http://271patent.blogspot.com/2007/01/ad-hoc-community-patent-review-and.html > > A good question to ask might be- what role would p2patent have played > had it been up and running before this started? I'm really not sure if > it is a great question (given the speed with which that particular > meme moved) but something to ponder, at any rate. >