De-constructing the Patent Office

I thought I'd repost this for anyone privvy to a discussion patent process who 
may have missed it.

Cheers,
 
Michael A. Norton
 




________________________________
From: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
To: Daniel Smith <opened.to@gmail.com>
Cc: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>; W3C Egov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 7:01:36 PM
Subject: Re: Is Privacy Dead ? A helpful hint.


Hi Daniel, Gannon, and everyone,

My plans changed for this evening so I can scribble a response now.   I am in 
the dark about Freebase, please enlighten me. :)   
With regard to the patent process, I am not so much interested in it anymore, 
but if I were an employee of a major corporation my feelings would probably be 
different because they have the resources - both legal and financial - to grab 
the attention of the patent examiners much more swiftly than does an individual, 
IMO, regardless of the merit of whatever "new" idea is on the page.   Another 
problem which is quite interesting is that for a truly "new" idea, the patent 
office is at a loss for dealing with such on the basis of classification, which 
in my  experience became a semantic train wreck.  At one time, my classification 
number represented "power plants & turbine exhaust systems" when in fact it was 
a multiplexing piece of software.   On several occasions from 2006-2008, I tried 
to expedite what is known as a First Office Action from examiners at the Patent 
Office to no avail, only to be pinged around like a pinball.   When the First 
Office Action (and rejection) finally came in 2010, five years after filing my 
pro forma application, my thoughts were that it could have been written by a 
freshman in any sub-ivy league university, trivial at best with one single 
reference to a work that was very much dissimilar to my own.  There were 
suggested changes that could have made the application allowable for patent, but 
at that point my energies in sync with Patent Office were totally exhausted. Yet 
another complication with my application was that it dealt with a vast array  of 
agencies and departments on the federal level, and with the patent office being 
a section of the Department of Commerce, whose contractual obligations are 
adjoined with ICANN, our DNS provider,   my UD-DNS system app emerged with a 
complicated and complex conflict of interest within the USPTO itself.   I should 
probably have been better off submitting a proposal to either ICANN or the GSA, 
 but the former was ruled out due to its international scope, and the latter was 
just not considered at the time.   Still, with all this said, I did enjoy the 
excitement and anticipation while undergoing the process of patent procedure, 
albeit my patience became significantly worn with it.

I look forward to hearing about your idea and perhaps expounding more on mine 
outside the intricate context of the USPTO.

A wild world we live in: I just read on a PR newswire today that a former NORAD 
officer  believes UFO's will hang over several cities next Wednesday, Oct. 13th 
- just to visit, neither to communicate nor show themselves!   Ha!   

Have a great weekend! 


Cheers,

 
Michael A. Norton
 




________________________________
From: Daniel Smith <opened.to@gmail.com>
To: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
Cc: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>; W3C Egov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 3:29:29 PM
Subject: Re: Is Privacy Dead ? A helpful hint.

It's just my (unknowing) sense, but isn't this coordination of
metadata the exact thing that inventions like Freebase are trying to
overcome?

To Mike particularly, Wow, thanks for the excellent, informing
response. I didn't realize it was for something patented or in search
of...

So this is (UD-DNS) is something that you were working on for your own self?
Just wondering.
I have (what I feel to be, though I am probably way out of my league),
an invention that I have been considering for a long while now, along
somewhat similar lines, though different. I think it might be
transcending in the financial realm. (Like we need it...)

I was going to write to you off list, but in retrospect I thought
perhaps it would flesh out the conversation if I asked it here. If you
could, perhaps you could talk about the parameters or concerns for
going through such a "patent search/application," etc. for such  a
device, I'd be most interested.

If you'd like to respond off-list, that'd be fine, too.

Great weekend, all.

Daniel Smith

On 10/7/10, Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I digress, and quote Wikipedia:  "When interfering, two waves can add
> together
> to create a larger wave (constructive interference) or subtract from each
> other
> to create a smaller wave (destructive interference), depending on their
> relative
> phase."  Since Meta Data propogate as waves as well as particles, how does
> one
> determine the phase of any streaming or rolling set of Meta Data along the
> e-world pipeline?  How much constructive interference of Meta Data would be
> required to tilt the coherence of waves propogated amidst physical  space?
>
> Michael A. Norton
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
> To: W3C Egov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 2:08:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Is Privacy Dead ? A helpful hint.
>
>
> I'll try again.
>
> Meta Data (e.g. facts) propagate as a wave as well as a particle.  A report
> released at a "Coordinated Time" does not reflect the habits of human
> communities trying to reach a consensus. Until everyone has seen a "fact",
> it's
> News.  While information travels at the speed of light, *consensus* has a
> fixed
> path exactly 24 Hours + 1 Second long.  That  means, if you issue a report at
> time T, exactly 24 Hours + 1 Seconds later the whole world has seen it and a
> consensus can form.  Meta Data does not travel "through the grapevine",
> although
> "normal data" does - when a report is issued in Washington, London sees it
> as
> News 4 hours later and sees it as Meta Data 24 Hours + 1 Second after
> arrival.
>
> It's just arithmetic.  Each Country and each Subdivision has a
> characteristic
> "Arrival Time".  This is a constant, and unique, for each individual Entity
> - so
> the pair (Country Arrival Time, Subdivision Arrival Time) is also unique,
> even
> if it does not have any "deeper" meaning itself.  And it does *not* have any
> deeper meaning after exactly 24 Hours + 1 Second from when the Statistic was
> issued.  In terms of a Physics, There are a bunch of standing  waves, with
> varying frequencies which all collapse at T + (24 Hours + 1) Second, but
> since
> you knew the frequencies you can use them to sort the Entity Names.
>
> For Communities, and Meta Data I think "Consensus Moment" is a good way to
> put
> it, but in exactly 24 Hours + 1 Second, I should probably take a poll ;o)
>
> As a practical example of how this might be used, a csv of the group of
> Entities
> which comprise NAFTA (US+Canada+Mexico, technically I should exclude some of
> the
> Entities or add subdivisions, Palau etc.) is at
>
> http://www.rustprivacy.org/sun/spookville/nafta.txt
>
> If you were going to release NAFTA statics, then you would need to have a
> static
> (or a null) for every entity.
>
> I also made a  javascript calculator to compute the apparent arrival times,
> one
> at a time.  I'll post it in a few days.
>
> --Gannon
>
>
>