I still vividly recall the first time a hotel annoyed me by charging a package fee. It was a Hyatt hotel in downtown Chicago; I was attending a professional meeting about twenty years ago. I had arranged for some courier package to be sent to me, and I had to pay a $15 ransom to get the package. Continue reading “Amazon lockers in hotels”
Monitoring status of US patent applications
How may one monitor the status of a list of US patent applications? Clearly one way to do this is to set up a routine and to carry out manual steps of logging into PAIR daily to check the status. This is tedious and error-prone. What about USPTO’s Patent Docket widget in its MyUSPTO system? Is this a reliable way to monitor the status of a list of US patent applications? Continue reading “Monitoring status of US patent applications”
The problem with USPTO’s proposed non-DOCX penalty
(Update: it is time for you, dear reader to consider signing another letter. See blog posting.)
Until now, it has been optional for a practitioner to file a US patent application in DOCX format rather than in PDF format. But USPTO now proposes to charge a $400 penalty for filing a patent application in non-DOCX format. This is a very bad idea, for reasons that I will discuss in detail. Only if USPTO were to make fundamental changes in its way of receiving DOCX files would it be acceptable for USPTO to impose a penalty for filing in a non-DOCX format.
USPTO needs to follow WIPO’s example, permitting the practitioner to file a “pre-conversion format” version of a patent application along with the DOCX file. In the event of some later problem with USPTO’s rendering of the DOCX file, the practitioner would be permitted to point to the pre-conversion format, which would control in the event of any discrepancy.
Continue reading “The problem with USPTO’s proposed non-DOCX penalty”
Poor quality writing and its consequences
Poor quality writing usually only has modest consequences. In a bookstore, the consequence might be that the customer who considered buying a book puts it down and does not purchase it. In a teaching document, the consequence might be that the document does not explain things as well as might be desired, and the reader might have to read it twice to get its meaning.
Consider, though, the possible consequence of poor quality writing in an emergency sign in a public building. Here, the writer apparently had a goal of letting deaf persons know how to know that there is an alarm:
ALARM LOOKS LIKE A STROBE LIGHT.
The insertion of “looks like” needlessly adds a qualification that makes the reader wonder something like this:
Well, I wonder why they said this? I guess it is not actually a strobe light but in some way it merely “looks like” a strobe light. Do they mean that it is shaped like a strobe light or is encased in a clear plastic lens like a strobe light but is otherwise in some important way different from an actual strobe light?
I respectfully suggest that the writer could have saved everyone a lot of trouble by coming out and saying it rather than beating around the bush:
ALARM IS A STROBE LIGHT.
Better yet, the writer could have skipped completely any assumption that the reader already was familiar with strobe lights or, more particularly, that the reader knows what a strobe light “looks like”. The writer probably really should simply have said
IF YOU SEE A VERY BRIGHT FLASHING LIGHT, DO X.
We can also look at the sentence:
ALARM SOUNDS LIKE A HORN.
Once again I suggest the reader is unnecessarily forced to second-guess along these lines:
Okay, so I am hearing a horn. It cannot be the alarm, because they said the alarm merely “sounds like” a horn rather than saying that the alarm “is” a horn. So I wonder what is being communicated by this horn?
Better would have been to say:
ALARM IS A HORN.
or better yet:
IF YOU HEAR A VERY LOUD HORN, DO X.
How would you have worded such a sign? Please post a comment below.
Is a US patent applicant required to file an IDS?
A reader of this blog wrote to me to ask “is a US patent applicant required to file an IDS even if the inventor is not aware of any relevant prior art?” The question inspired the blog article that follows. Continue reading “Is a US patent applicant required to file an IDS?”
Why we stopped using Afex for incoming bank wires
We receive many bank wires each month from patent and trademark firms outside of the US. Some months ago in a flurry of micro-managing, I happened upon the realization that Wells Fargo was charging us anywhere in the range of $16-27 per incoming foreign bank wire. This prompted us to switch over to Afex as a way to receive incoming bank wires, because Afex will receive such wires free of charge.
But we have decided to stop using Afex for incoming bank wires, and we are now using TransferWise to receive our incoming bank wires. This blog article describes why. Continue reading “Why we stopped using Afex for incoming bank wires”
N26 in the United States
Many readers of this blog are doubtless aware of N26, a German bank that is expanding to the US. I had put myself on their waiting list some months ago. (According to news reports about 100,000 people in the US had put themselves on that waiting list.) A week or so ago an email arrived saying that Real Soon Now I would have an opportunity to actually open an account. Today another email arrived saying yes I really can open an account. Which I have done. And I have a few initial reactions. Continue reading “N26 in the United States”
Digital Timestamping Service
What is “Digital Timestamping Service”? What is the problem for which “Digital Timestamping Service” is the solution? This blog article discusses these questions. Continue reading “Digital Timestamping Service”
Brazil joins Madrid Protocol
Brazil has joined the Madrid Protocol. The Protocol will enter into force for Brazil on October 2, 2019. Continue reading “Brazil joins Madrid Protocol”
National Review doesn’t know a patent from a trademark
Sigh. Even as respected a publication as the National Review doesn’t know the difference between a patent and a trademark. Continue reading “National Review doesn’t know a patent from a trademark”