[%TAGS (074db819ec% %074db819ec) %]

(074db819ec% subtitle %074db819ec)

(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)chronological(074db819ec% END %074db819ec) (074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Thread(074db819ec% END %074db819ec)

(074db819ec% IF user.email && action == 'arc' %074db819ec) (074db819ec% END %074db819ec)

From: phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)
Subject: [Patents] USPTO second examination as a biased random coin flip?
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 12:40:21 +0200 (CEST)

> First, I'd like to know if these numbers are accurate, secondly,
> I can't help noticing that 35% equals 'approximately 60%' squared,
> i.e. these numbers seem to imply that the result of the second
> examination is completely UNcorrelated to the result of the first one.

Indeed, it follows from the above that the validity rate of already
approved patent applications is no lower than that of unexamined ones,
in other words a successful examination means absolutely nothing.

A bit hard to believe.

--
Hartmut Pilch                                           http://phm.ffii.org/
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation        http://swpat.ffii.org/
80000 signatures against software patents         http://www.noepatents.org/

[Patents] USPTO second examination as a biased random coin flip?, Luuk van Dijk
- [Patents] USPTO second examination as a biased random coin flip?, PILCH Hartmut

(074db819ec%|loc%074db819ec)Archive powered by(074db819ec%END%074db819ec) MhonArc 2.6.16.

(074db819ec%TAGS [% %]%074db819ec)