<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl" type="text/xsl" media="screen"?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css" type="text/css" media="screen"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>Intellectual Property Directions</title>
	
	<link>http://ipdirections.techroadmap.com</link>
	<description>TechRoadmap discusses Intellectual Property issues from a non-legal perspective</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/IntellectualPropertyDirections" type="application/rss+xml" /><feedburner:emailServiceId>1383138</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname>http://www.feedburner.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://add.my.yahoo.com/rss?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2FIntellectualPropertyDirections" src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/my/addtomyyahoo4.gif">Subscribe with My Yahoo!</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://feeds.my.aol.com/add.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2FIntellectualPropertyDirections" src="http://o.aolcdn.com/favorites.my.aol.com/webmaster/ffclient/webroot/locale/en-US/images/myAOLButtonSmall.gif">Subscribe with My AOL</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://fusion.google.com/add?feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2FIntellectualPropertyDirections" src="http://buttons.googlesyndication.com/fusion/add.gif">Subscribe with Google</feedburner:feedFlare><item>
		<title>Tick-Tock, The Slow Patent Examination Clock</title>
		<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/IntellectualPropertyDirections/~3/457761168/</link>
		<comments>http://ipdirections.techroadmap.com/2008/11/18/tick-tock-the-slow-patent-examination-clock/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bruce</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[PTO problems]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Patent Strategy]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Patent System]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Patent Examination]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Patent Office Problems]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipdirections.techroadmap.com/?p=69</guid>
		<description>Dennis Crouch, a associate professor of law at University of Missouri has compiled a table of the time to first office action for a variety of technology centers. That is, how long does it take the patent office to get back to you with their (no doubt obviousness-based) rejection of most or all of your claims.
For the technology [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/IntellectualPropertyDirections/~4/457761168" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipdirections.techroadmap.com/2008/11/18/tick-tock-the-slow-patent-examination-clock/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://ipdirections.techroadmap.com/2008/11/18/tick-tock-the-slow-patent-examination-clock/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Some Software Vendors Don’t Get It</title>
		<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/IntellectualPropertyDirections/~3/456488594/</link>
		<comments>http://ipdirections.techroadmap.com/2008/11/17/some-software-vendors-dont-get-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:32:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bruce</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[licensing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[licenses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipdirections.techroadmap.com/?p=68</guid>
		<description>I don&amp;#8217;t usually comment on licenses (I care more about technology issues than business deals) and I&amp;#8217;m even less interested in the software licenses in shrink-wrapped retail software. But last week I came across a software license that is so egregious in its terms, that so exceeds any logical relationship with its customers, that it almost [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/IntellectualPropertyDirections/~4/456488594" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipdirections.techroadmap.com/2008/11/17/some-software-vendors-dont-get-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://ipdirections.techroadmap.com/2008/11/17/some-software-vendors-dont-get-it/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>eWeek commentary on “in re Bilski”</title>
		<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/IntellectualPropertyDirections/~3/450769794/</link>
		<comments>http://ipdirections.techroadmap.com/2008/11/12/eweek-commentary-on-in-re-bilski/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:04:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bruce</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[business method patents]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ipdirections.techroadmap.com/?p=67</guid>
		<description>Thought I&amp;#8217;d pass along a link to eWeek contributor Jim Rapoza&amp;#8217;s commentary on the &amp;#8220;in re Bilski&amp;#8221; ruling. While Jim conflates trolls, obviousness, and the real topic of Bilski (business methods/software), it&amp;#8217;s still worth a quick read.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/IntellectualPropertyDirections/~4/450769794" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ipdirections.techroadmap.com/2008/11/12/eweek-commentary-on-in-re-bilski/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://ipdirections.techroadmap.com/2008/11/12/eweek-commentary-on-in-re-bilski/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	</channel>
</rss>
