Last Wednesday, Patents4Life forgot to celebrate its first anniversary. I have done a lot of writing, and recruiting of some writers (particular thanks to Paul Cole of Lucas & Co., UK, and Ronald J. Schutz of Robins Kaplan in Minneapolis for their posts on European law and practice and US litigation, respectively). I would also like to thank Mary Hirsch, the Marketing Director at SLW, for managing this site and getting it half-way organized. Of course I have a few thoughts, and will try to keep them short of a law review article.
Clearly, this is not the type of blog or tweeting thing whereby I share random thoughts on the state of IP today, in 165 characters or less. But neither is it exhaustive reporting and/or analysis of each and every decision, proposed rule, and bill relating to patent law and policy. (Even more clearly, I nearly flunked statistics in college, so no graphs for you!)
Patents4Life most closely resembles the now-defunct print newsletter, Patent Strategy and Management. The idea was to deliver short, timely, un-footnoted articles of interest to a wide range of technology acquisition and management professionals. It was a worthy concept, and I wrote for PSM for a number of years. But a good concept can be a bad idea, and print simply is not as timely as almost real-time reporters like PatentlyO, “Hal’s list”, Patent Baristas and now, Patents4Life.
I know sometimes “I do go on” (as my Alabama aunt might say) but I have been following some of these topics for years, e.g., ever since Chakrabarty was decided, Bayh-Dole was enacted and people started to try to patent the products of “genetic engineering” (not a term much in use today!). Yes, I can go on – and I hope to keep doing it for some years to come.