However, we cannot let this week pass without a brief nod to an event that is the culmination of much hard work by many of our colleagues over the past few months. On Monday 26 July 2010 our employer launched a new look, and a new approach to business, which we are very excited to share with the world! As promised, however, no pressure, no names and no links right here. Interested readers will have no trouble tracking us down via the "About" page.
Enough said, we now resume normal programming...
Before You Go…
Thank you for reading this article to the end – I hope you enjoyed it, and found it useful. Almost every article I post here takes a few hours of my time to research and write, and I have never felt the need to ask for anything in return.
But now – for the first, and perhaps only, time – I am asking for a favour. If you are a patent attorney, examiner, or other professional who is experienced in reading and interpreting patent claims, I could really use your help with my PhD research. My project involves applying artificial intelligence to analyse patent claim scope systematically, with the goal of better understanding how different legal and regulatory choices influence the boundaries of patent protection. But I need data to train my models, and that is where you can potentially assist me. If every qualified person who reads this request could spare just a couple of hours over the next few weeks, I could gather all the data I need.
The task itself is straightforward and web-based – I am asking participants to compare pairs of patent claims and evaluate their relative scope, using an online application that I have designed and implemented over the past few months. No special knowledge is required beyond the ability to read and understand patent claims in technical fields with which you are familiar. You might even find it to be fun!
There is more information on the project website, at claimscopeproject.net. In particular, you can read:
- a detailed description of the study, its goals and benefits; and
- instructions for the use of the online claim comparison application.
Thank you for considering this request!
Mark Summerfield
2 comments:
There are a lot of "we"s and "our"s on this blog but I can't see posts by any other person. Is there another at Watermark, or other firm, that writes on this blog? Or is it the royal "we", so to speak.
I think it will be appropriate to respond to this comment in the first person!
It is a good question, considering that it is something I gave some thought to before starting the blog.
Certainly, it is not the "royal we", since I would never claim that level of authority (or wealth)! It is an editorial or authorial "we", and I had three basic reasons for choosing this style of writing.
For one, I did not want the blog to be too informal or chatty. It will not always be entirely serious, but it is intended to address relatively weighty matters when appropriate.
Secondly, contributions are welcome. A number of my colleagues have indicated some interest in writing for the blog, although this has yet to translate into any actual articles! However, I do want to maintain a consistent style and will always reserve the right to edit contributions to achieve this. (Any contributions will of course be attributed, and will not be edited for content.)
Having decided to avoid the first person, I considered the alternatives, including things like "your correspondent", or "this author". All much worse than "we"!
In my past academic career, "we" was pretty much compulsory for journal articles, even when writing as a sole author. If you did not do it, the editor would do it for you. In my current profession, it is common to use "we", particularly in substantive advice, not least because any work I do is on behalf of the firm, and more particularly its Principals.
So I am accustomed to "we", and "we" it is.
Post a Comment