Wiki-правительство: Как технологии могут сделать власть лучше, демократию – сильнее, а граждан – влиятельнее

76. Tafas v. Dudas, 07 – cv-0846 (E. D. Va 2007).

77. USPTO, Human Capital Survey Employee Responses.

78. См.: U. S. Government Accountability Office, “Intellectual Property: USPTO Has Made Progress in Hiring Examiners, but Challenges to Retention Remain,” GAO-05–720 (2005) («В зависимости от типа патента и собственной квалификации каждый эксперт, как ожидается, может обработать в среднем 87 заявок в год, тратя в среднем 19 часов на заявку»)Kevin Maney, “Patent Applications So Abundant That Examiners Can’t Catch Up,” USA Today, September 21, 2005, p. 3B.

79. Alan P. Douglas, “Column of the President,” Patent Office Professional Association Newsletter 81 (June – July 1981).

80. U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of Inspector General, “Patent and Trademark Office: Board of Appeals and Interferences: High Inventory and Inadequate Monitoring Threaten Effectiveness of Appeal Process,” Audit Report BTD-10628-8-0001, September 1998, p. 11.

81. National Research Council, A Patent System for the 21st Century, edited by Stephen A. Merrill, Richard C. Levin, and Mark B. Myers (Washington: National Academy of Sciences, 2004), p. 104.

82. John A. Squires, “Mr. Director (Please) Tear Down This Wall,” AIPLA spring meeting, May 14, 2008 (www.aipla.org/Content/ContentGroups/Speaker_Papers/Spring_Meeting/200812/Squires).

83. John Love, deputy commissioner for patent examination policy, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, “Patent Relations with the PTO,” AIPLA spring meeting, May 10, 2007 (www.aipla.org/Content/Microsites139 [October 2008]).

84. Joseph Rolla, “Presentation to the Boston Patent Law Association” (www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/presentation/ bostonplaslidestext.html [October 2008]).

85. См.: Edward C. Walterscheid, The Nature of the Intellectual Property Clause: A Study in Historical Perspective (Buffalo: William S. Hein, 2002), pp. 107–110.

86. Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (New York: Signet Classics, 2004 [1889]), p. 58.

87. Venetian Statute on Industrial Brevets (1474); An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of Such Copies, During the Times Therein Mentioned (Statute of Anne), 8 Anne c. 19 (1709).

88. Philips v. AWH Corp., 376 F. 3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

89. Carlos Gutierrez, letter to Patrick Leahy, April 3, 2008 (www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/letters/110/S1145Apr0308.pdf [October 2008]).

90. Method of swinging on a swing, U. S. Patent 6368227 (April 9, 2002); reexamination, C. N. 90006289, Cl. 472/118 (May 21, 2002).

91. Adam Jaffe and Josh Lerner, Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System Is Endangering Innovation and Progress, and What to Do about It (Princeton University Press, 2004), p. 22.

92. Dan Cooperman, “The Patent System and the Future of Innovation,” speech, Legal Futures Conference, Stanford Law School, March 8, 2008 (www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/20080308_CIS_Legal-Futures_190–3.qtl [December 2008]).

93. Brad Smith, “Microsoft Calls for Reforms to the U. S. Patent System,” March 10, 2005 (www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/mar05/03-10patentreform.mspx).

94. Theodore Eisenberg and Margo Schlanger, “The Reliability of the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts Database: An Initial Empirical Analysis,” Notre Dame Law Review 78 (October 2003) (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=413181 [October 2008]).

95. PricewaterhouseCoopers, “2008 Patent Litigation Study: Damages, Awards, Success Rates, and Time to Trial” (www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf [October 2008]).

96. Jason Schlosser, “Judge Slashes $307 Million Patent Verdict for Rambus,” August 14, 2006 (news.lp.findlaw.com/andrerws/bt [October 2008]).

97. TiVO Inc. v. EchoStar, 516 F. 3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

98. Julie Creswell, “So Small a Town, So Many Patent Suits,” New York Times, September 24, 2006, p. 2 (citing LegalMetric, “National Litigation Report”).

99. AIPLA, “Report of the Economic Survey, 2007” (www.aipla.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Professional_Development/Law_Practice.htm [October 2008]).

100. Ibid.

101. George S. Ford, Thomas M. Koutsky, and Lawrence J. Spiwak, “Quantifying the Cost of Substandard Patents: Some Preliminary Evidence,” Policy Paper 30 (Washington: Phoenix Center).

102. Manny W. Schecter, “Prior Art: Open Collaboration Is Medicine for Our Ailing Patent System,” BNA, Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Journal 72 (October 20, 2006): 682–685; quotation, 684.

103. Bessen and Meurer, Patent Failure, p. 8.

104. U. S. Patent 6058417 (information presentation and management in an online trading environment), filed October 23, 1998; granted May 2, 2000.

105. Professional Inventors Alliance, “Save the Patent,” April 7, 2008 (www.docs.piausa.org/PIAUSA/08-04-07-PIAUSA-NYT [October 2008]).

106. Ryan Thomas Grace, “Method and instrument for proposing marriage to an individual,” U. S. Patent Application 10/378423 (filed March 3, 2003).

107. Bessen and Meurer, Patent Failure, p. 8.