Re: Is Privacy Dead ? A helpful hint.

Hi Daniel,

A little of both.  I hired a lawyer to file the pro forma provisional 
application (which I wrote).  I then wrote the non-provisional app myself.  If 
you can afford one, I would recommend a lawyer, but on the advice a patent 
lawyer in his book about the process itself, it is sometimes best to have the 
inventor write the app himself, as theoretically he's the only one who knows 
precisely the nature of his invention.  


As for corporations, perhaps an application by "IBM" at the USPTO has a little 
more street cred than "Joe Shmoe" (again, regardless of merit, no offense to Big 
Blue). :)  


Okay back to work!
 
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: Wed, October 27, 2010 3:31:10 AM
Subject: Re: Is Privacy Dead ? A helpful hint.

Ok Michael, as to my first patent question...

Let me start by asking kind of more of the background of how you filed
the patent?
I mean, did you use a lawyer through the process, would you recommend that?,
or did you go through the process by yourself?

Just wondering where you said that corporations have the ability to
grab the attention of the patent officers, etc.

Will write more later. Just that for now.
Gotta go to work.
Thanks.

Dan

On 10/7/10, Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>