<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Patent Buddy Releases Top 100 Law Firms List</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/24/patent-buddy-releases-top-100-law-firms-list/id=5154/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/24/patent-buddy-releases-top-100-law-firms-list/id=5154/</link>
	<description>Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications &#38; Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:54:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Gene Quinn</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/24/patent-buddy-releases-top-100-law-firms-list/id=5154/#comment-7977</link>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:48:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=5154#comment-7977</guid>
		<description>Joff-

Thanks for this clarification.  I also received the same information from Patent Buddy.  Perhaps I did not look closely enough at the list, but it seemed that others were having the same trouble interpreting the results that I was (once the problem was pointed out to me).  That being the case, and since I was not in charge of compiling the list and I want to do whatever I can to maintain what I believe is my reputation for accuracy, I chose to remove the list from IPWatchdog.com.  Perhaps I over reacted, I don&#039;t know.  What I do know is that I was not comfortable with the list when inquiries were be made of me and about the list.  I erred on the side of caution, no doubt.

-Gene</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joff-</p>
<p>Thanks for this clarification.  I also received the same information from Patent Buddy.  Perhaps I did not look closely enough at the list, but it seemed that others were having the same trouble interpreting the results that I was (once the problem was pointed out to me).  That being the case, and since I was not in charge of compiling the list and I want to do whatever I can to maintain what I believe is my reputation for accuracy, I chose to remove the list from IPWatchdog.com.  Perhaps I over reacted, I don&#8217;t know.  What I do know is that I was not comfortable with the list when inquiries were be made of me and about the list.  I erred on the side of caution, no doubt.</p>
<p>-Gene</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joff Wild</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/24/patent-buddy-releases-top-100-law-firms-list/id=5154/#comment-7974</link>
		<dc:creator>Joff Wild</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:01:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=5154#comment-7974</guid>
		<description>Gene,

The Patent Buddy list relates only to patents obtained for the 300 companies that receive most patents from the USPTO. Clearly, most - if not all - of the firms on the top 100 list will also represent other clients, which is why the overall number of patents that the firms obtain will not correlate to the numbers detailed by Patent Buddy. That could explain the disparities you and the firm that contacted you have found.

All the best,

Joff</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gene,</p>
<p>The Patent Buddy list relates only to patents obtained for the 300 companies that receive most patents from the USPTO. Clearly, most &#8211; if not all &#8211; of the firms on the top 100 list will also represent other clients, which is why the overall number of patents that the firms obtain will not correlate to the numbers detailed by Patent Buddy. That could explain the disparities you and the firm that contacted you have found.</p>
<p>All the best,</p>
<p>Joff</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

