Sunday, June 25, 2006

Reviewed llamas


Blogs reviewed in scholarly journals? I did not think it was possible for anyone to take us seriously, but the latest issue of the excellent Journal of Intellectual Property & Practice (2006 1(7):493-494) has a review by Toby Headdon of three IP blogs: Lessig Blog, Patently-O and yours truly. I have not read the review, but I received a blurb from colleagues, and I must really thank Toby for the kind and encouraging words. Risking infringement, the first paragraph reads:

I have not quite figured out the connection between technology and llamas but it is syntactically pleasing. In spite of almost daily postings by Andrés Guadamuz González (e-commerce lecturer at the University of Edinburgh), this blog site, by its own admission, appears to attract very few comments: ‘I'm ranked 37,346 (in the "Insignificant Microbe" category)’, we are informed. Quite frankly, it doesn't deserve to be. This blog site is laced with wit and is all the more entertaining for it—take, for example, the comment on the intent of pro-software patent lobbyists to propose another attempt to pass the ill-fated directive on computer-implemented inventions: ‘Wonderful thing democracy. If you don't like the result, try and try again.’
Thanks again to Toby for the very flattering review, I promise to use more pictures in the future. I'm trying to think of something witty to say... alas, it's not happening. I blame the Brazilian caipirinhas.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

A base in Edinburgh is good for an IP Blog, because Scotland has connections with both the common law and civil law worlds. A world-wide readership could produce interesting comments. I WISH YOU EVERY SUCCESS WITH YOUR BLOG.

The Journal picked out, along with yours, also the Patently-O blog. If you look at the Patently-O item on eBay, you see a string of 32 comments and, towards the end, the age-old lament that patent specifications are deliberately obscure. My contentious thesis is that patent applications (wherever in the world they are written) are so obscure ONLY because they are written primarily for the US Courts and there, obfuscation pays. One small example: in a PCT (and US) specification, there is supposed to be, somewhere between the background and the detailed description, a section headed "Summary of the Invention". Nowadays ,it is written "Summary". How about that as a confuser for a reader who is not a patent attorney? If you want to optimise your position in US litigation, the Rule seems to be "Never, ever, say what the invention is". A system which encourages such trends, in a document defining and describing an INVENTION (for goodness' sake) is a matter of regret. My hunch is that the patents community in USA supposes that this routine obfuscation benefits the Applicant/Patentee just as much in ROW as in USA. They might not care if it hurts the inventor outside USA but, if those who make and enforce the law in USA were to realise that USA, alone in all the world, encourages obfuscation, it just might prompt them to do something about it, in the interests of the great American public.

Do any of your US readers wish to respond, I wonder?

Carlos said...

Felicitaciones. Desde Chile sigo tu blog desde hace un tiempo y siempre me ha parecido de lo más interesante... debe ser porque también me interesa todo lo que esta relacionado con Propiedad Intelectual y Derecho de Autor.

Saludos!

Andres Guadamuz said...

Muchas gracias Carlos!