Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘standing in scientific community’

ChatGPT Searches and Advent of Meta Threads: What it Means for Social Media and Science 3.0

Posted in Artificial Intelligence - General, ChatGPT at LPBI Group, ChatGPT, GPT-4, Curation, Natural Language Processing (NLP), Open Access Journals, REAL TIME Conference Coverage Twitter's Hashtags and Handles per Presentation/session, Scientific & Biotech Conferences: Press Coverage, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on July 11, 2023| Leave a Comment »

ChatGPT Searches and Advent of Meta Threads: What it Means for Social Media and Science 3.0

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

The following explains how popular ChatGPT has become and how the latest social media platforms, including Meta’s (FaceBook) new platform Threads, is becoming as popular or more popular than older social Platforms.  In fact, since its short inception since last week (Threads launced 7/07/2023), Threads is threatening Twitter for dominance in that market.

The following is taken from an email from Charlie Downing Jones from journoreasearch.org and  https://www.digital-adoption.com/ :

U.S. searches for ChatGPT overtake TikTok, Pinterest, and Zoom

  • Google searches for ChatGPT have overtaken TikTok in the U.S., jumping to 7.1 million monthly searches compared to 5.1 million
  • The term ‘ChatGPT’ is now one of the top 100 search terms in the U.S., ranking 92nd, according to Ahrefs data
  • ChatGPT is now searched more than most major social networks, including LinkedIn, Pinterest, TikTok, and Reddit

Analysis of Google search data reveals that online searches for ChatGPT, the popular AI chatbot, have overtaken most popular social networks in the U.S. This comes when search interest in artificial intelligence is at its highest point in history.

 

The findings by Digital-adoption.com reveal that US-based searches for ChatGPT have exploded and overtaken popular social networks, such as LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Tiktok, some by millions.

 

Ranking Keyword US Search Volume (Monthly)
1 Facebook                                  70,920,000
2 YouTube                                  69,260,000
3 Twitter                                  15,440,000
4 Instagram                                  12,240,000
5 ChatGPT                                  7,130,000
6 LinkedIn                                  6,990,000
7 Pinterest                                  5,790,000
8 TikTok                                  5,130,000
9 Reddit                                  4,060,000
10 Snapchat                                  1,280,000
11 WhatsApp                                  936,000

 

Since its release in November 2022, searches for ChatGPT have overtaken those of most major social networks. According to the latest June search figures by search tool Ahrefs, searches for ‘ChatGPT’ and ‘Chat GPT’ are made 7,130,000 times monthly in the U.S.

That’s more than the monthly search volume for most of the top ten social networks, including LinkedIn, Pinterest, and TikTok. TikTok is one of the largest growing social media apps, with 100 million users in just a year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The term ‘ChatGPT’ is now one of the top 100 search terms in the U.S., ranking 92nd, according to Ahrefs data

 

Searches for ChatGPT have eclipsed other major networks in the U.S., such as Reddit, by millions.

Every day search terms such as ‘maps’ and ‘flights’ have even seen their search volumes pale compared to the rising popularity of ChatGPT. ‘Maps’ is currently searched 440,000 times less than the chatbot each month, and ‘Flights’ is now Googled 2.2 million times less.

2023 has been a breakout year for AI, as searches for the term have more than doubled from 17 million in January 2023 to 42 million in May. In comparison, there were 7.9 million searches in January 2022. There has been an 825% increase in searches for ‘AI’ in the US compared to the average over the last five years.

There is a correlation between the uptick and the public releases of accessible AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, released on November 30, 2022, and Bing AI and Google Bard, released in May 2023.

According to TikTok data, interest in artificial intelligence has soared tenfold since 2020, and virtual reality has more than tripled.

AI has been a big topic of conversation this year as accessible AI chatbots and new technologies were released and sparked rapid adoption, prompting tech leaders like Elon Musk to call for AI regulation.

A spokesperson from Digital-adoption.com commented on the findings: “There has been a massive surge in AI interest this year. Apple’s announcement of Vision Pro has captured audiences at the right time, when new AI technologies, like ChatGPT, have become accessible to almost anyone. The rapid adoption of ChatGPT is surprising, with it becoming one of the fastest-growing tools available”.

All data was gathered from Ahrefs and Google Trends.

If using this story, please include a link to https://www.digital-adoption.com/ who conducted this study. A linked credit allows us to keep supplying you with content that you may find useful in the future.

 

If you need anything else, please get in touch.

All the best,
Charlie Dowling-Jones

 

charlie.dowling-jones@journoresearch.org

 

Journo Research

Part of Search Intelligence Ltd. Company registered in England No. 09361526

Why LPBI Needs to consider the new Meta Threads Platform

From Barrons

Threads Hits 100 Million Users Faster Than ChatGPT. Now It Needs Them to Stay.

 

By

Adam ClarkFollow

Updated July 10, 2023 9:00 am ET / Original July 10, 2023 7:44 am ET

The launch of Meta Platforms’ Threads looks to have outpaced even the viral success of ChatGPT in terms of signing up users. The next challenge will be keeping them around.

Since its inception on Thursday 7/07/2023, Meta’s new Threads platform has been signing up new users at an alarming rate.  On rollout date 5 million signed up, then 30 million by next morning and now as of today (7/1/2023) Threads has over 100 million signups.  Compare that to Twitter’s 436 million users, of which are tweeting on average 25% less than a few years ago, and it is easy to see why many social media pundits are calling Threads the new Twitter killer app.

 

Here are a few notes from the New York Times podcast The Daily

The Daily

1 day ago

Will Threads Kill Twitter?

Play • 33 min

Last week, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, released Threads, a social media platform to compete with Twitter. In just 16 hours, Threads was downloaded more than 30 million times.

Mike Isaac, who covers tech companies and Silicon Valley for The Times, explains how Twitter became so vulnerable and discusses the challenges Meta faces to create a less toxic alternative.

Guest: Mike Isaac, a technology correspondent for The New York Times.

Background reading:

Here are a few notes from the podcast:

Mike Isaac lamented that Twitter has become user unfriendly for a host of reasons.  These include:

  • The instant reply’guys’ – people who reply but don’t really follow you or your thread
  • Your followers or following are not pushed to top of thread
  • The auto bots – the automated Twitter bots
  • Spam feeds
  • The changes in service and all these new fees: Twitter push to monetize everything – like airlines

Elon Musk wanted to transform Twitter but his history is always cutting, not just trimming the excess but he is known to just eliminate departments just because he either doesn’t want to pay or CAN’T pay.  With Twitter he gutted content moderation.

 

Twitter ad business is plumetting but Musk wants to make Twitter a subscription business (the Blue check mark)

Twitter only gets a couple of million $ per month from Twitter Blue but Musk has to pay billions to just pay the interest on Twitter loan for Twitter puchase years ago

It is known that Musk is not paying rent on some California offices (some are suggesting he defaulted on leases) and Musk is selling Tesla stock to pay for Twitter expenses (why TSLA stock has been falling … the consensus out there)

Twitter is largest compendium of natural language conversations and Musk wanted to limit bots from scraping Twitter data to do AI and NLP on Twitter threads.  This is also a grievance from other companies… that these ‘scrapers’ are not paying enough for Twitter data.  However as Mike asks why do the little Twitter user have to pay in either fees or cutbacks from service.  (the reason why Elon is limiting viewing per day is to limit these bots from scraping Twitter for data)

Another problem is that Twitter does not have its own servers so pays a lot to Google and AWS for server space.  It appears Elon and Twitter are running out of money.

META and THREADS

Zuckerberg has spent billions of infrastructure spending and created a massive advertising ecosystem.  This is one of the thoughts behind his push and entry into this space.  Zuckerberg actually wanted to but Twitter a decade ago.

 

Usage and growth:  The launch of Threads was Thursday 7-07-23. There were 2 million initial signups and by next morning 30 million overnight.  Today Monday 7-10-23 there are 100 million, rivaling Twitter’s 436 million accounts.  And as Musk keeps canceling Twitter accounts, angering users over fees or usage restrictions, people are looking for a good platform.  Mastedon in too technical and not having the adoption like Meta Threads is having.  Mike Isaac hopes Threads will not go the way of Google Hangouts or Plus but Google strategy did not involve social media like Facebook.

Signup and issues: Signup on Threads is easy but you need to go through Instagram.  Some people have concerns about having their instagram thread put on their Threads feed but Mike had talked to the people at Meta and they are working to allow users to keep the feeds separate, mainly because Meta understands that the Instgagram and Twitter social cultures are different and users may want to keep Threads more business-like.

Important issues for LPBI: Twitter had decided, by end of May 2023 to end their relationship with WordPress JetPack service, in which WordPress posts could automatically be posted to your Twitter account and feed.  Twitter is making users like WordPress pay for this API and WordPress said it would be too expensive as Twitter is not making a flat fee but per usage fee.  This is a major hindrance even though the Twitter social share button is still active on posts.

Initial conversations between META and WordPress have indicated META will keep this API service free for WordPress.

 

So a little background on Meta Threads and signup features from Meta (Facebook) website:

Takeaways

  • Threads is a new app, built by the Instagram team, for sharing text updates and joining public conversations.
  • You log in using your Instagram account and posts can be up to 500 characters long and include links, photos, and videos up to 5 minutes in length.
  • We’re working to soon make Threads compatible with the open, interoperable social networks that we believe can shape the future of the internet.

Mark Zuckerberg just announced the initial version of Threads, an app built by the Instagram team for sharing with text. Whether you’re a creator or a casual poster, Threads offers a new, separate space for real-time updates and public conversations. We are working toward making  Threads compatible with the open, interoperable social networks that we believe can shape the future of the internet.

Instagram is where billions of people around the world connect over photos and videos. Our vision with Threads is to take what Instagram does best and expand that to text, creating a positive and creative space to express your ideas. Just like on Instagram, with Threads you can follow and connect with friends and creators who share your interests – including the people you follow on Instagram and beyond. And you can use our existing suite of safety and user controls.

Join the Conversation from Instagram

It’s easy to get started with Threads: simply use your Instagram account to log in. Your Instagram username and verification will carry over, with the option to customize your profile specifically for Threads.

Everyone who is under 16 (or under 18 in certain countries) will be defaulted into a private profile when they join Threads. You can choose to follow the same accounts you do on Instagram, and find more people who care about the same things you do. The core accessibility features available on Instagram today, such as screen reader support and AI-generated image descriptions, are also enabled on Threads.

Your feed on Threads includes threads posted by people you follow, and recommended content from new creators you haven’t discovered yet. Posts can be up to 500 characters long and include links, photos, and videos up to 5 minutes in length. You can easily share a Threads post to your Instagram story, or share your post as a link on any other platform you choose.

Tune Out the Noise

We built Threads with tools to enable positive, productive conversations. You can control who can mention you or reply to you within Threads. Like on Instagram, you can add hidden words to filter out replies to your threads that contain specific words. You can unfollow, block, restrict or report a profile on Threads by tapping the three-dot menu, and any accounts you’ve blocked on Instagram will automatically be blocked on Threads.

As with all our products, we’re taking safety seriously, and we’ll enforce Instagram’s Community Guidelines on content and interactions in the app. Since 2016 we’ve invested more than $16 billion in building up the teams and technologies needed to protect our users, and we remain focused on advancing our industry-leading integrity efforts and investments to protect our community.

Compatible with Interoperable Networks

Soon, we are planning to make Threads compatible with ActivityPub, the open social networking protocol established by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the body responsible for the open standards that power the modern web. This would make Threads interoperable with other apps that also support the ActivityPub protocol, such as Mastodon and WordPress – allowing new types of connections that are simply not possible on most social apps today. Other platforms including Tumblr have shared plans to support the ActivityPub protocol in the future.

We’re committed to giving you more control over your audience on Threads – our plan is to work  with ActivityPub to provide you the option to stop using Threads and transfer your content to another service. Our vision is that people using compatible apps will be able to follow and interact with people on Threads without having a Threads account, and vice versa, ushering in a new era of diverse and interconnected networks. If you have a public profile on Threads, this means your posts would be accessible from other apps, allowing you to reach new people with no added effort. If you have a private profile, you’d be able to approve users on Threads who want to follow you and interact with your content, similar to your experience on Instagram.

The benefits of open social networking protocols go well beyond the ways people can follow each other. Developers can build new types of features and user experiences that can easily plug into other open social networks, accelerating the pace of innovation and experimentation. Each compatible app can set its own community standards and content moderation policies, meaning people have the freedom to choose spaces that align with their values. We believe this decentralized approach, similar to the protocols governing email and the web itself, will play an important role in the future of online platforms.

Threads is Meta’s first app envisioned to be compatible with an open social networking protocol – we hope that by joining this fast-growing ecosystem of interoperable services, Threads will help people find their community, no matter what app they use.

What’s Next

We’re rolling out Threads today in more than 100 countries for iOS and Android, and people in those countries can download the app from the Apple App Store and Google Play Store.

In addition to working toward making Threads compatible with the ActivityPub protocol, soon we’ll be adding a number of new features to help you continue to discover threads and creators you’re interested in, including improved recommendations in feed and a more robust search function that makes it easier to follow topics and trends in real time.

 

Should Science Migrate over to Threads Instead of Twitter?

I have written multiple time of the impact of social media, Science and Web 2.0 and the new Science and Web 3.0 including

Will Web 3.0 Do Away With Science 2.0? Is Science Falling Behind?

Science Has A Systemic Problem, Not an Innovation Problem

 

It, as of this writing, appears it is not crucial that scientific institutions need to migrate over to Threads yet, although the impetus is certainly there.  Many of the signups have of course been through Instagram (which is the only way to signup for now) and a search of @Threads does not show that large scientific organizations have signed up for now.

 

A search for NIH, NCBI, AACR, and Personalized Medicine Coalition or PMC which is the big MGH orgaization on personalized medicine appears to return nothing yet.  Pfizer and most big pharma is on @Threads now but that is because they maintain a marketing thread on Instagram.  How necessary is @Threads for communicating science over Science 3.0 platform remains to be seen.  In addition, how will @Threads be used for real time scientific conference coverage?  Will Meta be able to integrate with virtual reality?

Other articles of Note on this Open Access Scientific Journal Include:

Will Web 3.0 Do Away With Science 2.0? Is Science Falling Behind?

Science Has A Systemic Problem, Not an Innovation Problem

Relevance of Twitter.com forthcoming Payment System for Scientific Content Promotion and Monetization

Is It Time for the Virtual Scientific Conference?: Coronavirus, Travel Restrictions, Conferences Cancelled

Part One: The Process of Real Time Coverage using Social Media

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Why did this occur? The matter of Individual Actions Undermining Trust, The Patent Dilemma and The Value of a Clinical Trials

Posted in Academic Publishing, Automated Cell Processing, BioBanking, Biomarkers & Medical Diagnostics, Biomedical Measurement Science, Cancer Prevention: Research & Programs, Cancer Screening, Cardiac and Cardiovascular Surgical Procedures, Clinical Diagnostics, Curation, Diagnostic Immunology, Disease Biology, Small Molecules in Development of Therapeutic Drugs, Ecosystems & Industrial Concentration in the Medical Device Sector, Epigenetics and Cardiovascular Risks, FDA Regulatory Affairs, Frontiers in Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disorders, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Health Law & Patient Safety, HealthCare IT, Healthcare Reform, Immunodiagnostics, Infectious Disease & New Antibiotic Targets, Intellectual Property, Innovations, Commercialization, Investment in technological breakthrough, Law and Medicine Conflicts, Leadership, Power, Social Interlocking Connections, Mass automation of plasma proteins, Medical Devices R&D and Inventions, Medical Devices R&D Investment, Medical Imaging Technology, Image Processing/Computing, MRI, CT, Nuclear Medicine, Ultra Sound, Open Access Journals, Origins of Cardiovascular Disease, Patents, Pharmaceutical Analytics, Pharmaceutical Industry Competitive Intelligence, Pharmaceutical R&D Investment, Scientist: Career considerations, Statistical Methods for Research Evaluation, tagged , , , , , , , , on July 18, 2014| Leave a Comment »

Why did this occur? The matter of Individual Actions Undermining Trust, The Patent Dilemma and The Value of a Clinical Trials

Reporter and Curator: Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP

 

he large amount of funding tied to continued research and support of postdoctoral fellows leads one to ask how following the money can lead to discredited work in th elite scientific community.

Moreover, the pressure to publish in prestigious journals with high impact factors is a road to academic promotion.  In the last twenty years, it is unusual to find submissions for review with less than 6-8 authors, with the statement that all contributed to the work.  These factors can’t be discounted outright, but it is easy for work to fall through the cracks when a key investigator has over 200 publications and holds tenure in a great research environment.  But that is where we find ourselves today.

There is another issue that comes up, which is also related to the issue of carrying out research, and then protecting the work for commercialization.  It is more complicated in the sense that it is necessary to determine whether there is prior art, and then there is the possibility that after the cost of filing patent and a 6 year delay in obtaining protection, there is as great a cost in bringing the patent to finasl production.

I.  Individual actions undermining trust.

II. The patent dilemma.

III. The value of a clinical trial.

IV. The value contributions of RAP physicians
(radiologists, anesthesiologists, and pathologists – the last for discussion)
Those who maintain and inform the integrity of medical and surgical decisions

 

I. Top heart lab comes under fire

Kelly Servick

Science 18 July 2014: Vol. 345 no. 6194 p. 254 DOI: 10.1126/science.345.6194.25

 

In the study of cardiac regeneration, Piero Anversa is among the heavy hitters. His research into the heart’s repair mechanisms helped kick-start the field of cardiac cell therapy (see main story). After more than 4 decades of research and 350 papers, he heads a lab at Harvard Medical School’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) in Boston that has more than $6 million in active grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He is also an outspoken voice in a field full of disagreement.

So when an ongoing BWH investigation of the lab came to light earlier this year, Anversa’s colleagues were transfixed. “Reactions in the field run the gamut from disbelief to vindication,” says Mark Sussman, a cardiovascular researcher at San Diego State University in California who has collaborated with Anversa. By Sussman’s account, Anversa’s reputation for “pushing the envelope” and “challenging existing dogma” has generated some criticism. Others, however, say that the disputes run deeper—to doubts about a cell therapy his lab has developed and about the group’s scientific integrity. Anversa told Science he was unable to comment during the investigation.

“People are talking about this all the time—at every scientific meeting I go to,” says Charles Murry, a cardiovascular pathologist at the University of Washington, Seattle. “It’s of grave concern to people in the field, but it’s been frustrating,” because no information is available about BWH’s investigation. BWH would not comment for this article, other than to say that it addresses concerns about its researchers confidentially.

In April, however, the journal Circulation agreed to Harvard’s request to retract a 2012 paper on which Anversa is a corresponding author, citing “compromised” data. The Lancet also issued an “Expression of Concern” about a 2011 paper reporting results from a clinical trial, known as SCIPIO, on which Anversa collaborated. According to a notice from the journal, two supplemental figures are at issue.

For some, Anversa’s status has earned him the benefit of the doubt. “Obviously, this is very disconcerting,” says Timothy Kamp, a cardiologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, but “I would be surprised if it was an implication of a whole career of research.”

Throughout that career, Anversa has argued that the heart is a prolific, lifelong factory for new muscle cells. Most now accept the view that the adult heart can regenerate muscle, but many have sparred with Anversa over his high estimates for the rate of this turnover, which he maintained in the retracted Circulation paper.

Anversa’s group also pioneered a method of separating cells with potential regenerative abilities from other cardiac tissue based on the presence of a protein called c-kit. After publishing evidence that these cardiac c-kit+cells spur new muscle growth in rodent hearts, the group collaborated in the SCIPIO trial to inject them into patients with heart failure. In The Lancet, the scientists reported that the therapy was safe and showed modest ability to strengthen the heart—evidence that many found intriguing and provocative. Roberto Bolli, the cardiologist whose group at the University of Louisville in Kentucky ran the SCIPIO trial, plans to test c-kit+ cells in further clinical trials as part of the NIH-funded Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network.

But others have been unable to reproduce the dramatic effects Anversa saw in animals, and some have questioned whether these cells really have stem cell–like properties. In May, a group led by Jeffery Molkentin, a molecular biologist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio, published a paper in Nature tracing the genetic lineage of c-kit+ cells that reside in the heart. He concluded that although they did make new muscle cells, the number is “astonishingly low” and likely not enough to contribute to the repair of damaged hearts. Still, Molkentin says that he “believe[s] in their therapeutic potential” and that he and Anversa have discussed collaborating.

Now, an anonymous blogger claims that problems in the Anversa lab go beyond controversial findings. In a letter published on the blog Retraction Watch on 30 May, a former research fellow in the Anversa lab described a lab culture focused on protecting the c-kit+ cell hypothesis: “[A]ll data that did not point to the ‘truth’ of the hypothesis were considered wrong,” the person wrote. But another former lab member offers a different perspective. “I had a great experience,” says Federica Limana, a cardiovascular disease researcher at IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana in Rome who spent 2 years of her Ph.D. work with the group in 1999 and 2000, as it was beginning to investigate c-kit+ cells. “In that period, there was no such pressure” to produce any particular result, she says.

Accusations about the lab’s integrity, combined with continued silence from BWH, are deeply troubling for scientists who have staked their research on theories that Anversa helped pioneer. Some have criticized BWH for requesting retractions in the midst of an investigation. “Scientific reputations and careers hang in the balance,” Sussman says, “so everyone should wait until all facts are clearly and fully disclosed.”

 

II.  Trolling Along: Recent Commotion About Patent Trolls

July 17, 2014

PriceWaterhouseCoopers recently released a study about 2014 Patent Litigation. PwC’s ultimate conclusion was that case volume increased vastly and damages continue a general decline, but what’s making headlines everywhere is that “patent trolls” now account for 67% of all new patent lawsuits (see, e.g., Washington Post and Fast Company).

Surprisingly, looking at PwC’s study, the word “troll” is not to be found. So, with regard to patent trolls, what does this study really mean for companies, patent owners and casual onlookers?

First of all, who are these trolls?

“Patent Troll” is a label applied to patent owners who do not make or manufacture a product, or offer a service. Patent trolls live (and die) by suing others for allegedly practicing an invention that is claimed by their patents.

The politically correct term is Non-practicing Entity (NPE). PwC solely uses the term NPE, which it defines as an entity that does not have the capability to design, manufacture, or distribute products with features protected by the patent.

So, what’s so bad about them?

The common impression of an NPEs is a business venture looking to collect and monetize assets (i.e., patents). In the most basic strategy, an NPE typically buys patents with broad claims that cover a wide variety of technologies and markets, and then sues a large group of alleged patent infringers in the hope to collect a licensing royalty or a settlement. NPEs typically don’t want to spend money on a trial unless they have to, and one tactic uses settlements with smaller businesses to build a “war chest” for potential suits with larger companies.

NPEs initiating a lawsuit can be viewed positively, such as a just defense of the lowly inventor who sold his patent to someone (with deeper pockets) who could fund the litigation to protect the inventor’s hard work against a mega-conglomerate who ripped off his idea.

Or NPE litigation can be seen negatively, such as an attorney’s demand letter on behalf of an anonymous shell corporation to shake down dozens of five-figure settlements from all the local small businesses that have ever used a fax machine.

NPEs can waste a company’s valuable time and resources with lawsuits, yet also bring value to their patent portfolios by energizing a patent sales and licensing market. There are unscrupulous NPEs, but it’s hardly the black and white situation that some media outlets are depicting.

What did PwC say about trolls?

Well, the PwC study looked at the success rates and awards of patent litigation decisions. One conclusion is that damages awards for NPEs averaged more than triple those for practicing entities over the last four years. We’ll come back to this statistic.

Another key observation is that NPEs have been successful 25% of the time overall, versus 35% for practicing entities. This makes sense because of the burden of proof the NPEs carry as a plaintiff at trial and the relative lack of success for NPEs at summary judgment. However, PwC’s report states that both types of entities win about two-thirds of their trials.

But what about this “67% of all patent trials are initiated by trolls” discussion?

The 67% number comes from the RPX Corporation’s litigation report (produced January 2014) that quantified the percentage of NPE cases filed in 2013 as 67%, compared to 64% in 2012, 47% in 2011, 30% in 2010 and 28% in 2009.

PwC refers to the RPX statistics to accentuate that this new study indicates that only 20% ofdecisions in 2013 involved NPE-filed cases, so the general conclusion would be that NPE cases tend to settle or be dismissed prior to a court’s decision. Admittedly, this is indicative of the prevalent “spray and pray” strategy where NPEs prefer to collect many settlement checks from several “targets” and avoid the courtroom.

In this study, who else is an NPE?

If someone were looking to dramatize the role of “trolls,” the name can be thrown around liberally (and hurtfully) to anyone who owns and asserts a patent without offering a product or a service. For instance, colleges and universities fall under the NPE umbrella as their research and development often ends with a series of published papers rather than a marketable product on an assembly line.

In fact, PwC distinguishes universities and non-profits from companies and individuals within their NPE analysis, with only about 5% of the NPE cases from 1995 to 2013 being attributed to universities and non-profits. Almost 50% of the NPE cases are attributed to an “individual,” who could be the listed inventor for the patent or a third-party assignee.

The word “troll” is obviously a derogatory term used to connote greed and hiding (under a bridge), but the term has adopted a newer, meme-like status as trolls are currently depicted as lacking any contribution to society and merely living off of others’ misfortunes and fears. [Three Billy Goats Gruff]. This is not always the truth with NPEs (e.g., universities).

No one wants to be called a troll—especially in front of a jury—so we’ve even recently seen courts bar defendants from referring to NPEs as such colorful terms as a “corporate shell,” “bounty hunter,” “privateer,” or someone “playing the lawsuit lottery.” [Judge Koh Bans Use Of Term ” Patent Troll” In Apple Jury Trial]

Regardless of the portrayal of an NPE, most people in the patent world distinguish the “trolls” by the strength of the patent, merits of the alleged infringement and their behavior upon notification. Often these are expressed as “frivolity” of the case and “gamesmanship” of the attorneys. Courts are able to punish plaintiffs who bring frivolous claims against a party and state bar associations are tasked with monitoring the ethics of attorneys. The USPTO is tasked with working to strengthen the quality of patents.

What’s the take-away from this study regarding NPEs?

The study focuses on patent litigation that produced a decision, therefore the most important and relevant conclusion is that, over the last four years, average damages awards for NPEs are more than triple the damages for practicing entities. Everything else in these articles, such as the initiation of litigation by NPEs, settlement percentages, and the general behavior of patent trolls is pure inference beyond the scope of the study.

This may sound sympathetic to trolls, but keep in mind that the study highlights that NPEs have more than triple the damages on average compared to practicing entities and it is meant to shock the reader a bit. One explanation for this is that NPEs are in the best position to choose the patents they want to assert and choose the targets they wish to sue—especially when the NPE is willing to ride that patent all the way to the end of a long, expensive trial. Sometimes settling is not an option. Chart 2b indicates that the disparity in the damages awarded to NPEs relative to practicing entities has always been big (since 2000), but perhaps going from two-fold from 2000 – 2009 to three times as much in the past 4 years indicates that NPEs are improving at finding patents and/or picking battles to take all the way to a court decision. More than anything, this seems to reflect the growth in the concept of patents as a business asset.

The PwC report is chock full of interesting patterns and trends of litigation results, so it’s a shame that the 67% number makes the headlines—far more interesting are the charts comparing success rates by 4-year periods (Chart 6b) or success rates for NPEs and practicing entities in front of a jury verusin front of a bench (Chart 6c), as well as other tables that reveal statistics for specific districts of the federal courts. Even the stats that look at the success rates of each type of NPE are telling because the reader sees that universities and non-profits have a higher success rate than non-practicing companies or individuals.

What do we do about the trolls?

The White House has recently called for Congress to do something about the trolls as horror stories of scams and shake-downs are shared. A bill was gaining momentum in the Senate, when Senator Leahy took it off the agenda in early July. That bill had miraculously passed 325-91 in the House and President Obama was willing to sign it if the Senate were to pass it. The bill was opposed by trial attorneys, universities, and bio-pharmaceutical businesses who felt as though the law would severely inhibit everyone’s access to the courts in order to hinder just the trolls. Regardless, most people think that the sitting Congressmen merely wanted a “win” prior to the mid-term elections and that patent reform is unlikely to reappear until next term.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court has recently reiterated rules concerning attorney fee-shifting on frivolous patent cases, as well as clarifying the validity of software patents. Time will tell if these changes have any effects on the damages awards that PwC’s study examined or even if they cause a chilling of the number of patent lawsuit filings.

Furthermore, new ways to challenge the validity of asserted patents have been initiated via the America Invents Act. For example, the Inter Partes Review (IPR) has yielded frightening preliminary statistics as to slowing, if not killing, patents that have been asserted in a suit. While these administrative trials are not cheap, many view these new tools at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board as anti-troll measures. It will be interesting to watch how the USPTO implements these procedures in the near future, especially while former Google counsel, Acting Director Michelle K. Lee, oversees the office.

In the private sector, Silicon Valley has recently seen a handful of tech companies come together as the License on Transfer Network, a group hoping to disarm the “Patent Assertion Entities.” Joining the LOT Network comes via an agreement that creates a license for use of a patent by anyone in the LOT network once that patent is sold. The thought is that the NPEs who consider purchasing patents from companies in the LOT Network will have fewer companies to sue since the license to the other active LOT participants will have triggered upon the transfer and, thus, the NPE will not be as inclined to “troll.” For instance, if a member-company such as Google were to sell a patent to a non-member company and an NPE bought that patent, the NPE would not be able to sue any members of the LOT Network with that patent.

Other notes

NPEs are only as evil as the people who run them—that being said, there are plenty of horror stories of small businesses receiving phantom demand letters that threaten a patent infringement suit without identifying themselves or the patent. This is an out-and-out scam and a plague on society that results in wasted time and resource, and inevitably higher prices on the consumer end.

It is a sin and a shame that patent rights can be misused in scams and shake-downs of businesses around us, but there is a reason that U.S. courts are so often used to defend patent rights. The PwC study, at minimum, reflects the high stakes of the patent market and perhaps the fragility. Nevertheless, merely monitoring the courts may not keep the trolls at bay.

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

*This is provided for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal or financial advice. The information expressed is subject to change at any time and should be checked for completeness, accuracy and current applicability. For advice, consult a suitably licensed attorney or patent agent.

 

III. Large-scale analysis finds majority of clinical trials don’t provide meaningful evidence

Ineffective Treatments, Medical Ethics • Tags: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Clinical trial, CTTI, Duke University Hospital, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, United States National Library of Medicine

04 May 2012

DURHAM, N.C.— The largest comprehensive analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov finds that clinical trials are falling short of producing high-quality evidence needed to guide medical decision-making. The analysis, published today in JAMA, found the majority of clinical trials is small, and there are significant differences among methodical approaches, including randomizing, blinding and the use of data monitoring committees.

“Our analysis raises questions about the best methods for generating evidence, as well as the capacity of the clinical trials enterprise to supply sufficient amounts of high quality evidence to ensure confidence in guideline recommendations,” said Robert Califf, M.D., first author of the paper, vice chancellor for clinical research at Duke University Medical Center, and director of the Duke Translational Medicine Institute.

The analysis was conducted by the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI), a public private partnership founded by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Duke. It extends the usability of the data in ClinicalTrials.gov for research by placing the data through September 27, 2010 into a database structured to facilitate aggregate analysis. This publically accessible database facilitates the assessment of the clinical trials enterprise in a more comprehensive manner than ever before and enables the identification of trends by study type.

 

The National Library of Medicine (NLM), a part of the National Institutes of Health, developed and manages ClinicalTrials.gov. This site maintains a registry of past, current, and planned clinical research studies.

“Since 2007, the Food and Drug Administration Amendment Act has required registration of clinical trials, and the expanded scope and rigor of trial registration policies internationally is producing more complete data from around the world,” stated Deborah Zarin, MD, director, ClinicalTrials.gov, and assistant director for clinical research projects, NLM. “We have amassed over 120,000 registered clinical trials. This rich repository of data has a lot to say about the national and international research portfolio.”

This CTTI project was a collaborative effort by informaticians, statisticians and project managers from NLM, FDA and Duke. CTTI comprises more than 60 member organizations with the goal of identifying practices that will improve the quality and efficiency of clinical trials.

“Since the ClinicalTrials.gov registry contains studies sponsored by multiple entities, including government, industry, foundations and universities, CTTI leaders recognized that it might be a valuable source for benchmarking the state of the clinical trials enterprise,” stated Judith Kramer, MD, executive director of CTTI.

The project goal was to produce an easily accessible database incorporating advances in informatics to permit a detailed characterization of the body of clinical research and facilitate analysis of groups of studies by therapeutic areas, by type of sponsor, by number of participants and by many other parameters.

“Analysis of the entire portfolio will enable the many entities in the clinical trials enterprise to examine their practices in comparison with others,” says Califf. “For example, 96% of clinical trials have ≤1000 participants, and 62% have ≤ 100. While there are many excellent small clinical trials, these studies will not be able to inform patients, doctors and consumers about the choices they must make to prevent and treat disease.”

The analysis showed heterogeneity in median trial size, with cardiovascular trials tending to be twice as large as those in oncology and trials in mental health falling in the middle. It also showed major differences in the use of randomization, blinding, and data monitoring committees, critical issues often used to judge the quality of evidence for medical decisions in clinical practice guidelines and systematic overviews.

“These results reinforce the importance of exploration, analysis and inspection of our clinical trials enterprise,” said Rachel Behrman Sherman, MD, associate director for the Office of Medical Policy at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Generation of this evidence will contribute to our understanding of the number of studies in different phases of research, the therapeutic areas, and ways we can improve data collection about clinical trials, eventually improving the quality of clinical trials.”

Related articles

 

IV.  Lawmakers urge CMS to extend MU hardship exemption for pathologists

 

Eighty-nine members of Congress have asked the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to give pathologists a break and extend the hardship exemption they currently enjoy for all of Stage 3 of the Meaningful Use program.In the letter–dated July 10 and addressed to CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner–the lawmakers point out that CMS had recognized in its 2012 final rule implementing Stage 2 of the program that it was difficult for pathologists to meet the Meaningful Use requirements and granted a one year exception for 2015, the first year that penalties will be imposed. They now are asking that the exception be expanded to include the full five-year maximum allowed under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

“Pathologists have limited direct contact with patients and do not operate in EHRs,” the letter states. “Instead, pathologists use sophisticated computerized laboratory information systems (LISs) to support the work of analyzing patient specimens and generating test results. These LISs exchange laboratory and pathology data with EHRs.”

Interestingly, the lawmakers’ exemption request is only on behalf of pathologists, even though CMS had granted the one-year hardship exception to pathologists, radiologists and anesthesiologists.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), one of the members spearheading the letter, had also introduced a bill (H.R. 1309) in March 2013 that would exclude pathologists from the incentives and penalties of the Meaningful Use program. The bill, which has 31 cosponsors, is currently sitting in committee. That bill also does not include relief for radiologists or anesthesiologists.

CMS has provided some flexibility about the hardship exceptions in the past, most recently by allowing providers to apply for one due to EHR vendor delays in upgrading to Stage 2 of the program.

However, CMS also noted in the 2012 rule granting the one-year exception that it was granting the exception in large part because of the then-current lack of health information exchange and that “physicians in these three specialties should not expect that this exception will continue indefinitely, nor should they expect that we will grant the exception for the full 5-year period permitted by statute.”

To learn more:
– read the letter (.pdf)

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: