[gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size
icann at leap.com
Fri Sep 1 23:24:13 UTC 2017
A reply to both Paul McGrady and Kiran's last 2 emails, in a single email:
1. Paul McGrady wrote:
Essentially, Paul M. appears to believe that offering up a competing
survey of one's own is a prerequisite to making a valuable
contribution to this PDP. That's not correct. It is perfectly
legitimate to point out statistical reality about a bad survey,
without offering up a competing one. Furthermore, strong input can be
made WITHOUT any surveys whatsoever to back up one's input:
"But, it's not like our resident statistical experts have submitted
any surveys of their own - scientifically perfect or otherwise - to
back up their opinions."
was already answered before, see:
But, let me demonstrate this again for you, so you can fully
understand, with two concrete examples.
(a) When I helped kill the .biz/info/org contract terms that would
have allowed tiered/differential pricing:
no "surveys" were required to "back up" my opinion --- it was my deep
and original thinking/analysis that did it. No survey required, but
better analysis of what was available to everyone.
(b) exact same superior analysis for killing off the proposed
"Expedited Transfer Reversal Policy" (ETRP) from the IRTP-B PDP as
discussed previously at:
"So folks, can we move off the unrequested, unhelpful opinions about
statistics (which are interestingly not backed up by surveys to
validate their accuracy which I find ironic) and get on with dealing
with the giant workload before us?"
No. It's these "unrequested" opinions that are actually the helpful
ones, because they help expose the flaws in what was submitted as
evidence in this PDP, and thus the weight that should be accorded the
INTA survey (namely zero).
This is the "superior analysis" that some in this PDP don't appear to
like, and want to stifle and dismiss as "unhelpful". It's very
helpful, to anyone who wants to do a scientific, neutral and objective
analysis in this PDP.
2. Kiran wrote:
Actually, it's *not* 33 company's "input into the process", i.e. the
"anecdotal evidence" that some wanted to "degrade" the survey into, to
still retain some weight in this PDP. My previous email which started
this thread talked about that, from the TTAB analysis.
*If* it was distinct input such as:
(a) IBM submitted the first anecdote (with all their individual responses).
(b) Disney submitted the second anecdote.
and so on, with 33 separate and concrete anecdotes, we might actually
consider that anecdotal evidence of some kind, and weight it
accordingly. But, that's *not* what we received at all.
The act of *aggregation* and anonymization of those 33 responses, in
order to attempt to present it as a **representative** survey
(representative of typical INTA companies, or TM holders at large,
which is ultimately the goal) means that all of the individual input
(33 separate anecdotes) was essentially destroyed.
We lost those 33 anecdotes, and they were instead transformed into and
replaced with various "averages". Since those "averages" are
meaningless statistically (as discussed at length), in the end we're
left with nothing at all.
If our group wants to do a proper survey, by all means lets do it! Ask
those exact same questions that INTA asked, but do it properly (e.g.
randomized from the USPTO or other national databases, and in
sufficient quantity to be statistically sound). Or ask even better
questions, that are more relevant to our work.
Folks like Paul Keating and myself and others don't fear more data
that is scientifically valid (we've asked for data like the TMCH
materials, more from The Analysis Group, etc. but been denied or been
waiting forever for it). And, we are perfectly within our rights as
contributing members to this PDP to insist that data that is gathered
in our work meet high standards, or be sent to the trash can.
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg