As the Founder of Article One Partners, I am excited to see this level of interest in the company.
I would like to respond to a few questions and clarify some of the excellent points made.
1. We select our Studies based on the economic value of patents to industry. Some of the patent owners are public companies and some are patent aggregators (in our launch Studies, 15% of the patent owners do not manufacture). I believe the use of the term "troller" hinders a better discussion about the real issue -- patent quality. This is our focus.
2. Our Advisors will be paid the Rewards stated within 60 days of an announcement of a Patent Study outcome. There is no holding period dependent upon court decision. Article One presents its opinion, only a court or the US Patent Office can render a decision about the validity of a patent. If a Patent Study is won, the full $50,000 is paid. We use the language "up to" because if the prior art we deem to be dispositive comes from multiple Advisors, then the Reward is shared among them.
3. Peer-to-Patent is for patent applications pending at the Patent Office, while AOP addresses patents which already have been granted. We formally endorse peertopatent.org by awarding profit sharing points to our Advisors who contribute to this valuable initiative.
4. For each Patent Study, we provide a questionnaire to assist our Advisors in determining eligibility, for example, due to employment.
I hope this information is helpful and invite you to join Article One as an Advisor. I appreciate your valuable knowledge and time.
Best,
Cheryl Milone
Founder and President
Article One Partners, articleonepartners.com
The EPO half-day strike demonstrates the gaining momentum of supporters of patent reform at a fundamental level. The public's burden, while more diffuse, is equally as important as the public is burdened with the costs of monopolistic pricing, exclusion from areas of R&D due to overly broad patents and the public cost of increased litigation.
I applaud Peer-to-Patent. There finally is a mechanism for the private sector to weigh in on the grant of rights to which they are subjected. I also believe that the same collective intelligence as the foundation of peertopatent needs to be employed to increase participation with the platform. And once there is a trackable impact from the work of peertopatent, more people will become involved.
Better patent quality is something everyone can agree on. The public and private sectors are coming together on this topic, which is vital to the efficacy of innovation worldwide.
I welcome the opinions of others.
Cheryl Milone
www.articleonepartners.com
Slashdot Mirror
As the Founder of Article One Partners, I am excited to see this level of interest in the company. I would like to respond to a few questions and clarify some of the excellent points made. 1. We select our Studies based on the economic value of patents to industry. Some of the patent owners are public companies and some are patent aggregators (in our launch Studies, 15% of the patent owners do not manufacture). I believe the use of the term "troller" hinders a better discussion about the real issue -- patent quality. This is our focus. 2. Our Advisors will be paid the Rewards stated within 60 days of an announcement of a Patent Study outcome. There is no holding period dependent upon court decision. Article One presents its opinion, only a court or the US Patent Office can render a decision about the validity of a patent. If a Patent Study is won, the full $50,000 is paid. We use the language "up to" because if the prior art we deem to be dispositive comes from multiple Advisors, then the Reward is shared among them. 3. Peer-to-Patent is for patent applications pending at the Patent Office, while AOP addresses patents which already have been granted. We formally endorse peertopatent.org by awarding profit sharing points to our Advisors who contribute to this valuable initiative. 4. For each Patent Study, we provide a questionnaire to assist our Advisors in determining eligibility, for example, due to employment. I hope this information is helpful and invite you to join Article One as an Advisor. I appreciate your valuable knowledge and time. Best, Cheryl Milone Founder and President Article One Partners, articleonepartners.com
The EPO half-day strike demonstrates the gaining momentum of supporters of patent reform at a fundamental level. The public's burden, while more diffuse, is equally as important as the public is burdened with the costs of monopolistic pricing, exclusion from areas of R&D due to overly broad patents and the public cost of increased litigation. I applaud Peer-to-Patent. There finally is a mechanism for the private sector to weigh in on the grant of rights to which they are subjected. I also believe that the same collective intelligence as the foundation of peertopatent needs to be employed to increase participation with the platform. And once there is a trackable impact from the work of peertopatent, more people will become involved. Better patent quality is something everyone can agree on. The public and private sectors are coming together on this topic, which is vital to the efficacy of innovation worldwide. I welcome the opinions of others. Cheryl Milone www.articleonepartners.com