Cool Queuing Theory Model Suggests Continuations Not the Problem at the PTO

Recently on Bill Heinze’s I/P Updates, I read about a note published by George Mason authors entitled “Improving Patent Examination Efficiency and Quality, An Operations Research Analysis of the USPTO, Using Queuing Theory“. 17 Fed. Cir. B. J. 133, 163 (2007).    The authors were attempting to validate validate the PTO’s concern with excessive continuation filings and proposed new rules regarding continuations.  The model, which incorporated feedback and branching of applications, was based on two assumptions:

1. A priority queue processes higher priority items first, giving them a shorter queuing delay – but at only at the expense of longer queuing delays for lower-priority arrivals. Since the USPTO gives higher priority to RCEs and continuing applications than to regular new applications, large numbers of RCEs and continuing applications should result in disproportionate waiting times for regular new applications.
2. At the very least, a limit on the number of continuing applications would be desirable because continuing applications can produce multiple generations of unlimited numbers of high priority offspring. RCEs and multiple non-final office actions both contribute to the risk of starvation, but pose less potential risk than continuing applications because they do not produce parallel offspring (branching feedback).

Surprisingly, the study found that continuing applications were not the primary cause of congestion of patent applications at the PTO.  According to the model, the excessive number of non-final rejections per application was the main culprit. The non-final rejections in each round of prosecution exceeded by far the number of second and later RCEs and continuation applications.   Thus, limiting or prohibiting successive generations of RCEs and continuation applications as the only change will not be effective in reducing the backlog.  Instead, reducing non-final rejections per application would be more effective because it would relieve the PTO of its primary burden on the system. 

The note went on to say that hiring additional examiners is not an effective solution because the PTO would need to exponentially increase its personnel in order to keep up with its load of patent applications.  Instead, a policy change addressing the source of the problems is required.

 Thus, it looks like it is time for the PTO to revise its rules, which have already been brought into question by Tafas v. Dudas, described in my blog from Nov. 2.  Using research data and mathematical models may prove to be a valuable aid as the PTO leadership considers its next move. 

Another Criticism on the Demise of OiNK (and the Problems of Class and Indie Rock)

Great post from marathonpacks (via fluxblog) on the demise of OiNK:

Yet what these people don’t understand, or at least won’t admit to understanding publicly, is that OiNK was a symbolic subcultural mirror of exactly everything they profess to hate about their vision of mainstream culture. You can’t deny that OiNK was itself a culture: it was private and elite, it had clearly elaborated and lengthy rules for membership that included an annoyingly audiophilic standard for musical “quality” and sanctions for not tithing as much as you took. It had forums where people discussed meta-level issues about its functionality. OiNK clearly had its own set of ideologies, and they were far from liberatory. While it’s only a symbolic gesture, I’m glad to see OiNK disappear for the same reasons I’m so glad to not be part of a music “scene” anymore; I don’t miss blue-blooded conservativism masquerading as originality and protest.

Also, included for free, support of the much-needed criticism of “Sasha Frere-Jones’ New Yorker article discussing race and indie rock.”

Fittingly, the most popular forms of “indie” music today—formerly accessible on OiNK by sorting in order of popularity—reflect its generic status as not one decided by instrumentation or miscegenation as much as social position. And, sad as it might be, that will probably (hopefully) be OiNK’s legacy 20 years from now: a cultural snapshot of music fandom and/of 00s indie rock as the express domain of the parochial and privileged.

Maybe places like this should take notice of the dangerousness of closed, elite communities.

Another Court Recognizes an Expectation of Privacy Over E-mail

From National Economic Research Associates, Inc. (“NERA”) v. Evans, 21 Mass.L.Rptr. 337 (Mass. Super. 2006):

NERA contends that any reasonable person would have known that the hard disk of a computer makes a “screen shot” of all it sees, which the computer then stores in a temporary file, including e-mails retrieved from a private password-protected e-mail account on the Internet. NERA further contends that any reasonable person would have known that these temporary files, although not readily accessible to the average user, may be located and retrieved by a forensic computer expert. This Court does not agree that any reasonable person would have known this information. Certainly, until this motion, this Court did not know of the routine storing of “screen shots” from private Internet e-mail accounts on a computer’s hard disk.

Furthermore:

The bottom line is that, if an employer wishes to read an employee’s attorney-client communications unintentionally stored in a temporary file on a company-owned computer that were made via a private, password-protected e-mail account accessed through the Internet, not the company’s Intranet, the employer must plainly communicate to the employee that:
1. all such e-mails are stored on the hard disk of the company’s computer in a “screen shot” temporary file; and
2. the company expressly reserves the right to retrieve those temporary files and read them.
Only after receiving such clear guidance can employees fairly be expected to understand that their reasonable expectation in the privacy of these attorney-client communications has been compromised by the employer.

Choosing Strong Passwords

Not quite a “law hack,” barely a “life hack,” maybe just a “memory hack.” But in response to this Lifehacker mention of an algorithm to create answers to “dumb” security questions, I decided to throw out my method of making memorable, strong passwords.

As time passes, password systems are requiring stronger passwords. Needs to be at least six characters wrong, mix up capital and lower case characters, has to have non-alphabetical characters, or even non-alphanumeric characters. Can’t have any words or names. And so on.

My method takes a line of a memorable song, using the naturally mnemonic nature of setting words to catchy music, and then uses the lyrics and the rhythm of the song to make the password sequence easier to remember.

What I do is choose a memorable phrase from one of my favorite songs. Let’s say I’m going to use the “Hey! Ho! Let’s go!” phrase in the Ramone’s “Blitzkrieg Pop.” (Just for the record, I’m not detailing any of my actual passwords.)

First, just take the first letter of each word: h-h-l-g. In the song, they shout this out twice in a row: h-h-l-g-h-h-l-g. Now, maybe there’s some emphasis on the first “Hey!” and “Ho!” and let’s put the exclamation point at the end of each verse: H-H-l-g-!-H-H-L-G-!

And there we go, a pretty strong password: HHlg!HHLG! Try it. Tap it out to the rhythm of the song while you’re singing the lyrics in your head. It works. HHlg!HHLG!

That’s the basic system. But you can get fancier by throwing in a word or two and just flashing it up a bit more:

WBTC,WBTCORARoll! (“We built this city on rock and roll!”)

ComWWS1TBPWYRD! (“Carry on my way-ward son…”)

1ggHiHntoaYC$ (“It’s getting hot in here…”)

Law Hacks

The ABA Journal online published a list of “law hacks” this past summer. They group these “hacks” under E-mail, Your PC, Time Management, Phones, the Web, Software, Low Tech, Your Brain, Your Money, Hardware, and more. (If you’re unfamiliar with the world of “hacks” or more properly “life hacks,” then they’re generally tidbits of advice to streamline your productivity. See Lifehacker for your daily dose.)

It’s pretty much a list scarfed from Lifehacker posts over the years. Only a few of them cater specifically to legal work. But nonetheless it’s a decent summary for people who are too busy to read through Lifehacker archives.

Instead of merely criticizing, here’s me putting my money where my mouth is and starting my own list of law hacks, some replicative of the ABA, others not. (You can read a snippet of my criticisms at the end of the list.)

1. Google Desktop Search (“GDS”) (or Spotlight in Mac OS). This is essential. Whenever I use a case, I save the PDF version in a folder for each client/project. And I allow GDS to catalog the contents. Then if I know I ran across a case about something, I don’t have to dig around—all I do is search. It’s that easy.
2. Name your files usefully. So I have a folder for every client/project. But files often float around independently. If I have a motion to dismiss document for client Smith, then it doesn’t help if the filename is “mot dismiss.doc,” especially if I e-mail it to someone or to myself to work on remotely. Name it usefully. I’ll use “Smith.MtD pers juris.111707.doc.” I won’t even explain what my abbreviations are for. It should be that easy.
3. Add short descriptions to case filenames. Even with GDS, sometimes you do find yourself digging around in folders and files looking for cases. When you’re reading cases, you’re usually looking for one main point of law from each one. So when you read through a case, name the file with the point it’s useful for. For example, “Smith v. Kim (1st Cir. 1992) neg op turn signals.pdf.”
4. Use a wiki or blog as a to-do list and notepad. I use a wiki to keep a running to-do list of short- and long-term tasks. I also have a list of “notepads” linked from the home page of long-term projects or just places to jot down important numbers and passwords, etc. Blogs are sometimes better for to-do lists because every day is a new to-do list and you can track your progress (or lack thereof) by replicating your existing to-do list every day. And keep them password-protected for security.
5. Use del.icio.us (or another bookmark manager). Organize and store all your bookmarks remotely so you can access them from any computer. Check out my bookmarks on rules: http://del.icio.us/pham/rules. Enough said.
6. Keep track of your time daily. Each summer, I had a small notebook for my to-do list that I would check off of and re-create at the end of each day—planning the next day’s work. I would have another small notebook where I’d write down the current project name, the time I started, and the time I stopped. Then at the end of the day or first thing the next day, I’d enter my time. I actually “experimented” by trying to account for time at the end of a week—it was impossible. And I didn’t feel right “fudging” the time, and in the end I’m sure I lost minutes which added up to hours, etc.
7. Use paper wisely—print double-sided and purge or re-use paper. It takes a few seconds to set your default printer to print double-sided. It just makes sense to do it. You’ll cut your paper usage approximately in half. I also think it’s easier to read; it’s more natural, like reading a book. Then, when you’re done with a project, purge as much paper as you can. Get it out of your office and into the recycling bin. Also, if you have to print on one-side, re-use it as scrap paper, put a staple into it and use it as a notebook, or take it home and use it in your inkjet. If you hand-write important annotations on cases, consider using something like Skim (Mac OS) to electronically annotate PDFs.
8. Keep your inbox slim. I talk about this below. You don’t need to empty your inbox every day; just keep it slim. It’s satisfying—or at least not overwhelming—to have a slim inbox. It doesn’t take much. When you get an e-mail, read it immediately and then file it away. If something needs to be taken care of, take care of it ASAP. If you can’t, then keep it in your inbox until you can, but make sure you get to it.
9. Practice voice mail etiquette—keep your greeting short, leave informative messages, use e-mail, text, or IM. Voice mail greetings don’t have to say much—hey, know you’re number, that’s why they’re calling you. “You’re reached [name]. Please leave a message.” And then when you’re leaving a message, don’t just say, “Call me back.” Tell me why. Compel me. Otherwise, you’ve wasted everybody’s time. Or just e-mail me or IM me. Voice mails are passive communications (just like e-mail or IM) that I can’t skim, that I have to work to get to.
10. Use IM. I think IM can be so useful in a work environment. It’s a quick, passive, unobtrusive way to get in touch with people. There’s also the fantastically helpful status message—you can, at a glance, tell if the person is available or not, and if they have informative statuses, what they’re up. (For example: “out to lunch until 1:30,” “working on Smith case,” “anyone know anything about suing a cop,” “afk” (away from keyboard), “working from home,” etc.) And if you use IM for work, don’t use your “BCEaglesROXNUMoneShoRTy” screen name from your foolish youth. Create a just-for-work screen name that’s professional and descriptive, like “johnsmithatXYZ.” And don’t give it out to your friends.

I don’t quite agree with the e-mail tips. I tend to think that you should keep your inbox small, but it doesn’t need to be cleared every day. My inbox is more of my mid- to long-term to-do list. Anything short-term I read and then archive or accomplish and then archive. Generally, I think once you file an e-mail away, it disappears unless you search for it. So if it’s not addressed or done, it can’t get filed away. But to keep your inbox slim, you have to address e-mails which gives you a satisfying incentive to get things done quick.

The PC hacks are a bit too technical. Plus, the recommendation of Quicksilver–which I use and love and couldn’t live without–is Mac-specific. (Launchy is the not-up-to-snuff PC variant.) But I’m totally on-board with the Google Desktop Search–or just Spotlight on the Mac OS–to search through documents, especially PDF files of cases.

District Court Blocks PTO New Continuation & Claim Rules

The Eastern District of Virginia court hearing the case of Tafas v. Dudas issued a preliminary injunction on Oct. 31 blocking the PTO’s implementation of its new continuation and claim rules that were to go into effect on Nov. 1.  In that case, a number of plaintiffs, including Glaxo Smithkline, had joined together to block the rules.

The court examined the traditional factors in issuing a preliminary injunction: 1) likelihood of success on the merits; 2) irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; 3) balance of hardships between plaintiffs and defendant; 4) public interest in the injunction. 

The court believed that the plaintiffs could suceed on the merits of the case.  The court noted that 35 U.S.C. 120 may prohibit limiting the number continuing applications that can be filed, and that the new rules could create retroactive effects on settled rights.  More specifically, the court found that plaintiffs had a vested right in the opportunity to file continuations and claims under the old rules, and an agency is not permitted to make retroactive rules.  The PTO’s guidelines for preparing an examination support document were also declared vague.

On the upside for the PTO, the court did rule that the PTO’s new rules were not arbitrary and capricious.

Further, the court agreed that the uncertainty of the new rules would cause plaintiffs irreparable harm.  The balance of hardships weighed in favor of the plaintiffs because they would face immediate harm once the rules were implemented, while any harm experienced by the PTO under a preliminary injunction would be gradual.  Because the public interest requires a stable patent system, an injunction would be appropriate.

Thus, the PTO was enjoined from implementing its new rules.  It was also enjoined from making any other new rules “restricting the number of continuing applications, the number of requests for continued examination, and the number of claims that may be filed with the PTO.”

The PTO posted a notice on its website of the decision, and noted that its examiners and staff would continue examining and processing applications under the old rules until further notice. 

Waffles! Hydra! Pink!

OiNK’s new home page is now hawking waffles—and links to a Google search on”what to use instead of oink.” (The first result is brokep’s (of The Pirate Bay) blog post, appropriately titled, “What to use instead of Oink (waffleswaffleswaffles and jam).”)

This seems to be a message to the world to support the “hydra” model of seeding and leeching content: Use lots of little sites instead of gravitating to a couple of big ones. The beast should be a many-headed hydra, and when you cut off one head, two more grow to take its place.

brokep was the first to herald this idea:

“So public message to people – start up your own torrent sites, make the internet the hydra it is and needs to be. If there’s hundreds of sites, they can’t all be shut down. And well, if they shut down the few that are today, there will be hundreds of sites, I’m sure, but let’s start them before so we can spread the word of them easier.”

Here’s another write-up on the OiNK and brokep talking about the hydra concept.

What a fantastic, rich concept in such a fascinating application. Decentralize for stability. But also specialize to serve the market better. On top of it all—globalize to protect international civil rights.

So while in this current context, it’s just about sharing music, it points down to deeper core principles about how these types of movements need to operate.

Extralegal Methods for Protecting Our Perceived File-Sharing Rights

In response to this dig on This Recording (where Alex Carnevale compares siding with the RIAA as supporting lynching): I can’t say that I support what the RIAA is doing. I think, reflecting upon Tim Wu’s articles on socially-acceptable crime, the RIAA is a private interest forcing the hand of government to expend tax-payers’ money in an area it might not be all that interested in. But by the current writing of the law, it has every right to do this.

Tim Wu argues that this is a failure in the political process: We have this law that doesn’t make sense and no one who can change it. Something has to change. Maybe the law *has* to change—but we, the people, don’t have the money or the political willpower to do that. In today’s society, we’d ideally want businesses to adjust their models, practices, and ultimately their ethics to suit their consumer base. But we know that’s not going to happen.

Our inability to act towards our own wants and desires in this sense is credited to our fear of the government watching us, catching us, and throwing us in the can. We get scared off from demonstrating to the government—or to the RIAA—what we think the law should really be.

In an upcoming article on privacy and e-mail, I wrote:

The panoptical society restricts individual autonomy by “unnecessarily constraining individual decision-making” through the constant threat of visibility leveraging the inherently unbalanced power dynamic favoring governmental actors.

(That’s academic-speak for saying the government, by watching us, scares us from making our own decisions about things.)

With the courts and Congress offering little protection for [our privacy concerns], and with the threat of a panoptical society on the horizon, individuals may be forced to adopt extralegal methods of protecting their perceived expectations of privacy. Fortunately, a number of technological innovations offer a variety of methods of prophylaxis from government intrusion.

And this is where things like OiNK come in. OiNK was an “extralegal” method of protecting our perceived rights. But it wasn’t secure enough. Now, to protect those perceived rights, people could then resort to better, more technologically savvy methods. Tighter, “more private” trackers. Tighter file-sharing communities. WASTE networks. Maybe even (gasp) BitTorrent over Tor.

And then hopefully Big Music and the government will see where this leads: They lose their ability to control the people when the people fritter away underground. Is this the type of arms race we want to be involved in? There’s obviously something wrong here—there’s this well-established disconnect between how music is consumed and how Big Music wants to distribute it. So someone’s got to give. And might it not be, in this case, the purpose of business to cede to consumers, and the government to cede to the people?

I suspect the MediaDefender debacle and this OiNK shut-down just hits the techie, hipster, and blogging communities closer to home than the everyman Napster and Kazaa controversies. This will soon blow over, and we’ll be back to the SNAFU we’ve be involved in for the last 20 odd years.

Are US-Based OiNK Users at Risk for Legal Liability? And Why This Was a Smart Move by Big Music

Idolator has two enlightening exchanges with US attorneys about whether US-based OiNK users are at risk for copyright infringement. The take-home is “yes,” but the likelihood of prosecution, on the other hand, is low:

I think it depends on how quickly the RIAA gets its hands on any of the server logs. That’s partly facetious, but I don’t see the U.S. Department of Justice using its resources right now for criminal investigations of copyright infringement. The overseas raids were criminal matters–I don’t expect the same here. Plus, there’s an interesting issue of whether the UK and Dutch authorities would share the information with a private party.  There are long-running debates over data treatment and security between the US and EU.

But if RIAA does get the logs and data, then there will be hell to pay for anyone who used credit cards [to donate]; those who maintained membership via upload will be a little harder to trace because you’d have to follow the IP addresses, and ISPs are not always willing to hand over their customers without court orders

The conversants also note that most of the transaction were done by PayPal. While eBay has an interest in protecting its users’ privacy, a simple court order might do the trick in tracking down copyright violators—should the RIAA and the US government choose to do so.   

This reminds me of this great series of articles on Slate by Tim Wu about how politics prevents (or dissuades by inefficiency in reform and execution) the prosecution of certain crimes—crimes that society, for one reason or another (particularly because of class), has chosen to accept. It all comes down to how important that crime is for the people in charge.

In this case, US-based users might be isolated a bit because the US might not have the interest and time to pursue this claim with cross-border implications. But I don’t believe that the RIAA doesn’t have the time or interest. This just smells like something they’d like to nip in the bud. Though the problem is the “scene”—those involved in the music industry who do the initial leaking—cracking down on the outlets for their indie-cred egos might be an effective way of stemming these illegal pre-releases.

I think this is more of an important issue than people are making it out to be. While before I wondered why the RIAA isn’t going after the big guys—I now think that going after OiNK was the *smart* thing to do. It’s like going after the yuppie coke snorters in the 80s before cheap crack hit the streets. It’s going after the trend-setters (the OiNK scenesters) and not the trend-followers (the unwashed masses on The Pirate Bay).

As can be seen by the record sales from the Kanye West vs. 50 Cent faux brawl (or Lance Bass vs. 50 Cent all-out rumble), or for country music sales, the most popular music isn’t hurting. It’s the up-and-coming, the trend-setters, and the scene-busters where most of the damage is felt. People support illegal file-sharing to help out the Cold War Kids or the Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! bands, but I’ve listened to Tegan and Sara and haven’t spent a penny on them yet. (Sorry for the name-dropping, I’m having a bad time thinking of good band examples.)

But Tegan and Sara (and now great bands like Rilo Kiley) are what’s playing on MTV and as background music on the CW, and that’s the market that’s being hurt by OiNK and the like. It’s this new, emerging market that the RIAA is protecting—for its benefit, but also arguably for the benefit of these really good bands that might be able to make the big break.

I can see the future just being this big, inconsistent mess, much like what Tim Wu discusses in his Slate articles. Big Music lets trend-setting friend-to-peer communities and bloggers build up the hype for up-and-coming bands, basically doing PR for the first album or two, and then when the bands are ready to break out, they shut down those communities and then lock down on the profits. It seems to make sense. Spend no money for the first few years, and then blow it out—getting legal fees and copyright judgments in the meantime. Not bad, puppet-masters, not bad.

OiNK File-Sharing Community Shut-Down

Now, we can talk about it: OiNK, the invite-only, free file-sharing community was raided by the police, and the owner was taken into custody. OiNK (once available at oink.cd)was known on the street for distributing a lot of not-yet-released and pre-release versions of albums. But OiNK was supposed to be a secret. (Some facts and rumors about the OiNK takedown.)

It’s interesting that they shot for this below-the-radar service, while the big ones still exist (like The Pirate Bay or Mininova). Maybe OiNK was never penetrated by companies like MediaDefender, and therefore wasn’t controllable or compromisable. Or maybe because OiNK was so good at grabbing those pre-releases. The tough thing is that whomever was behind this action doesn’t have to ‘fess up as to why they targeted OiNK—just that OiNK aided in copyright violations. The other tough thing—for OiNK—is that while he wasn’t making money explicitly for the service, he *did* accept donations, and no matter how minor those funds may have been, they could probably be easily connected with his service to make it for-profit.

And already people are looking back at even tighter friend-to-peer networks (or other darknets) like Soulseek and WASTE. The bump in users to the big guys, again, like The Pirate Bay, will probably barely be noticeable. People don’t want to share their super-secret goodies with the whole world; they want to do it with friends. So files bouncing from WASTE mini-network to WASTE mini-network will be better at insulating the actual initial seeder from discovery.

Regardless, at the end of the day, OiNK was a service that violated copyright—even though as some users will claim, it wasn’t *all* copyrightable, there was some openly free stuff there. Whether it was the proper strategic move to make is another question.