Posts

Posted on

How to get “add to calendar” wrong

click to enlarge

Back before the Internet happened, the way that a patient interacted with his or her primary care physician was, well, who can remember?  It was so long ago.  I guess it was mostly telephone calls, postal mail, and the occasional in-person visit.  Nowadays for most of us, the chief mode of interaction is the “patient portal”.   Recently my health insurance changed, and so I found myself interacting with a new (new to me) patient portal.  Whoever designed this particular portal made a dumb mistake in the programming of its “add to calendar” function.  The result was that when I showed up on time to my first get-acquainted appointment with my new primary care physician, I was told that I was an hour late and had missed my appointment.  I will describe the programming mistake.  Continue reading “How to get “add to calendar” wrong”

Posted on

A happy email to a client

Here, of course with necessary redactions, is the gist of an email that I sent to a patent client today.  The main point of the email message was to try to explain why the dollar amount of a bill was much smaller than one would normally expect it to be. There was also a second communications goal for the email, which is to explain how it is that we apparently are going to get an allowance essentially instantly from an art unit that has a First Office Action Prediction that is “pegged” at 30 months and in which the true number, if the USPTO were to be candid about it, is surely a much higher number of months than 30. Continue reading “A happy email to a client”

Posted on

Companies that offer CIAM (Customer Identity and Access Management)

Sort of by accident I learned just now that there is a whole fairly new emerging industry category called CIAM (Customer Identity and Access Management).  This CIAM industry category is populated by a bunch of companies, all of which are only a few years old, and many of which are growing fast.  It turns out that CIAM is “a thing”.  There are industry analysts and writers who apparently make a living writing about and analyzing the players in the world of CIAM.  It turns out that lots of enterprises and corporations are willing to pay lots of money for CIAM services.  In this blog article I will name some of these CIAM companies and I will poke fun at how one of the companies markets itself.  Continue reading “Companies that offer CIAM (Customer Identity and Access Management)”

Posted on

Why the word “mobile” in that odd USPTO notice yesterday?

Yesterday the USPTO posted a very odd notice telling all of its customers who use Time-base One-Time Password apps for two-factor authentication that between now and May 1, 2022, they need to discard their existing Secret Code Number and get a new Secret Code Number.  As I blogged yesterday (blog article) the notice is strikingly close to being content-free, explaining almost nothing about what it is trying to say.  Alert reader Gerry Peters posted a comment to my blog article that made me realize that not only was the USPTO notice nearly content-free, but it also used the word “mobile” in an extremely awkward way.  Gerry pointed out that a succinct writer could simply have used the two-word phrase “authenticator app” throughout the USPTO notice, and that instead the writer went to the special point of inserting the word “mobile” no fewer than seven times into the notice, forming the three-word phrase “mobile authenticator app” all seven times.  

Gerry pointed out that most users of USPTO systems like PAIR and EFS-Web and Patentcenter and TEAS (all of which require the use of two-factor authentication) almost certainly do not log in on a mobile phone but instead log in on a desktop or notebook computer.  Gerry pointed out, correctly, that the everyday shorthand phrase that most people use as a substitute for the accurate but rather longer phrase “Time-base One-Time Password app” is simply the two-word phase “authenticator app”.  Gerry wondered whether the seven-time insertion of “mobile” into the phrase was merely a sort of nervous tic, a completely unnecessary addition of a throwaway word, or whether the three-word phrase seemingly so carefully constructed and so consistently employed from the top to the bottom of the USPTO notice might have some significance.  Maybe for example the need for users to go through this complicated process of discarding an existing Secret Code Number and getting a new Secret Code number is limited to that subset of users who use mobile devices for logging in at the USPTO?  

Having read Gerry’s comment, and having given the matter quite a bit of thought, I conclude two things.    Continue reading “Why the word “mobile” in that odd USPTO notice yesterday?”

Posted on

Why you are forced to do yet another setup of your USPTO authenticator app settings

Many of us use an authenticator app such as Authy or Google Authenticator as our way of doing two-factor authentication when logging in at the USPTO.  Many of us recall the USPTO crash of about a year ago (blog article), that forced us to do another setup of our USPTO authenticator app settings.  Now comes a strikingly content-free announcement from the USPTO that we must all do yet another setup of our USPTO authenticator app settings.  Why is it, exactly, that we must do this?  I think I figured it out.  Continue reading “Why you are forced to do yet another setup of your USPTO authenticator app settings”

Posted on

A reminder of a national embarrassment for the United States

Yes one looks at the headline for this blog article and one realizes that the headline does not narrow things down very much.  But I will guess that this particular embarrassment that I am about to touch upon is one that most of us in the US have not thought about for a long time, given so many other more recent national embarrassments.  But somehow it got into my head to reflect recently on the unenviable rankings that the US earns in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment, with the acronym PISA.  Continue reading “A reminder of a national embarrassment for the United States”

Posted on

Better and worse garage door keypads

click to enlarge

Why is it that nearly every homeowner chooses to install the dopey garage door keypad shown at right?   I suppose the answer is that most of the time, the homeowner is not the person who actually makes the choice.  The choice is usually made by the company that installs the garage door opener.  The company that installs the garage door opener does not know any better — this is the only kind of keypad that they know how to install.  It is the only kind of keypad that is made by the company that makes the garage door opener.  But this keypad is dopey.  It only has one code number.  If you give out the code number to somebody, say a plumber, and later the plumber does not really need access any more, what are you going to do?  Change the code number?  Sure, except that now you have to somehow communicate the new code number to all of the other people who still need to have access.  They now all have to memorize the new code number.  There must be a better way.  And of course there is a better way.  Continue reading “Better and worse garage door keypads”

Posted on

The latest on the Commissioner for Trademarks wanting to know where trademark applicants sleep at night

(Update:  the case is now before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)

(Update:  a letter has been sent.  See blog article.)

It is by now a couple of years ago that the Acting Commissioner for Trademarks promulgated a rule requiring each trademark applicant to reveal to the Trademark Office where he or she sleeps at night.  Not simply the state where he or she sleeps at night, not just the city where he or she sleeps at night, but the exact street address where he or she sleeps at night.  I call this the “where you sleep at night” rule.  Yesterday there was yet another development on the “where you sleep at night” rule.  Continue reading “The latest on the Commissioner for Trademarks wanting to know where trademark applicants sleep at night”