Correcting some misconceptions in “BLOGGING, D-I-Y REEXAMINATION, AND THE ONE-CLICK PATENT”
The “271 patent blog” aims at “Providing insight and analysis on patent law, patent portfolio management and patent litigation in the fields of electronics, software and computers.” Almost one year ago it commented on my reexam request.What is kind of amusing is that in his post Chicago patent attorney Peter Zura has provided an image of ENTIRELY THE WRONG PATENT (I am including his image below as things tend to disappear on the web). This does set the tone for his following comment.
He goes on to state:
"It would be interesting to point out to him the prior art that Tim O'Reilly obtained during the BountyQuest days (and subsequently paid a $10k bounty on)."
It would be interesting to point out to Zura that I was already aware of the prior art that comes up in a superficial Google search. I didn't include it because:
(1) The prior art I found myself is better IMHO. He didn’t comment on the contents of my reexam request. Perhaps he requires an hourly rate to actually read the things he is blogging about.
(2) There is absolutely no style in simply regurgitating stuff others have found before. I know some people find this hard to comprehend.