Comment on the USPTO guidelines restoring software patents

Re:Comment on the USPTO guidelines restoring software patents by tptacek on Friday March 08, 2019 @03:48PM (#19342016)

Is there any point to these campaigns? It's not a vote, right? The idea is that they're supposed to collect diverse arguments and get as many informed perspectives as they can. "Lots of people pushed a button to post this comment" is not going to be a very powerful perspective.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comment on the USPTO guidelines restoring software patents by howard941 on Friday March 08, 2019 @03:56PM (#19342081)

Sheer volume is worth something. Perhaps only a little after the fiasco at the FCC with the forged net neutrality comments.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comment on the USPTO guidelines restoring software patents by tptacek on Friday March 08, 2019 @04:04PM (#19342163)

Isn't the FCC process actually explicit about the fact that number-of-votes isn't a factor? I don't know where I read this, but I feel like I read something about the regulatory feedback process and thought to myself "this is exactly how AfD at Wikipedia work" (where voting is also useless and actually counterproductive).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comment on the USPTO guidelines restoring software patents by howard941 on Friday March 08, 2019 @04:41PM (#19342475)

If volume isn't expressly ruled out as a factor it probably ought to be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comment on the USPTO guidelines restoring software patents by slavik81 on Friday March 08, 2019 @05:11PM (#19342710)

For the unfamiliar, AfD is "Articles for Deletion"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comment on the USPTO guidelines restoring software patents by NikkiA on Monday March 11, 2019 @05:17PM (#19362910)

Copy&Paste 'comments' on something like this just get binned anyway, same as when the FCC opened comments on the net neutrality issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]