The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an
intergovernmental organization with headquarters in Geneva,
Switzerland. It is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United
Nations system of organizations. The WIPO administers, inter alia,
the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT):
http://www.wipo.int/eng/pct/texts/page/wopct001.htm
The PCT is so important because of it allowes the applicant to file a
patent application with effect for over 100 contracting states to be
created just by filing the papers of application with a single
competent Patent Office (called "Receiving Office") with effect for
all other "Designated Offices" or "Elected Offices" for which a
checkbox has been marked in the application form (and for which
proper Official fees are paid):
http://www.wipo.int/eng/ratific/doc/m-pct.doc
The Receiving Office (e.g. the USPTO for applicants in the U.S., the
JPO for Japanese applicants, or the EPO for applicants in Europe and
so on) communicates the filings to the WIPO headquarters in Geneva
where all further steps are coordinated. A Patent Office (which might
be different form the Receiving Office) is nominated as
"International Search Authority" and conducts a prior art search. If
so requested, another Office acts as "International Preliminary
Examination Authority". Eventually, the patent application is passed
under the control of the Geneva WIPO operations to all of the
designated or elected Patent Offices for final examination and grant.
It seems to be quite clear that huge amounts or paperwork are to be
exchanged between the PCT applicants, the WIPO in Geneva, and all
other Patent offices acting as Receiving Offices, International
Search Authorities, International Preliminary Examination
Authorities, and/or designated/elected Offices. So, it is not a big
surprise that the PCT system is eagerly willing to enter into the era
of e-Business, or perhaps more precisely, e-Government. I have
written the above description of the PCT system because I want to
make clear that this administration is of significant importance
although the general public does not take much notice of it.
Recently the WIPO administrative bodies have uncovered more and more
technical details of what they intend to set up as a technical
infrastructure for their ambitious plans:
http://www.wipo.int/eng/meetings/2000/pct_ef/index.htm
Regarding PKI, the following document dated June 09, 2000 is in
particular relevant:
http://www.wipo.int/eng/meetings/2000/pct_ef/pdf/pct_ai_1a4p.pdf
http://www.wipo.int/eng/meetings/2000/pct_ef/doc/pct_ai_1a4p.doc
1. The first striking item (page 3, section 3.1) is that despite
relaxation of crypto regulations, a clause is provided according to
which "an industrial property Office or recognized Certification
Authority may decide to offer Key Recovery for the confidentiality
key pair when allowed (or required) under national laws". It seems
not to be clear whether this "service" is offered to the Offices
aimed at the applicants.
2. According to the WIPO paper, acceptable digital signatures in the
context of any PKI are to be bound to PKCS#7 (page 4, section 3.4):
ftp://ftp.rsasecurity.com/pub/pkcs/doc/pkcs-7.doc
What I don't know is whether PKCS Standards are under the control of
any public standards body or they are simply a de-facto industry
standard made by RSA Labs. Can this standard (at least theoretically)
be changed without notice by RSA Labs? Is there any corresponding
"official Standard" which might be used instead of referencing
PKCS#7? Would it have been a better idea from a technical point of
view to use the emerging OpenPGP standard instead? Are there modular
implementations of software packages for dealing with PKCS#7 formats
available under the GNU GPL License?
3. Under section 3.5, the WIPO paper recommends a symmetric
encryption algorithm called "dES-EDE3-CBC". I have never heard of
that. What is the meaning thereof?
4. Under section 3.7, SHA-1 is selected as Message Digest Algorithm.
Would you say that this algorithm is a proper state-of-the-art choice
for an upcoming new business standard?
5. Obviously due to political considerations, a least common
denominator has been implemented regarding to the requirement that
the applicant has to provide an electronic signature when filing a
PCT patent application with the respective Receiving Office: In
section 4 ("Signatures Mechanisms") the Receiving Offices are allowed
to require/allow
(a) Basic Electronic Signatures
(i) Facsimile image of the users signature
(ii) Text string, e.g. "/John Doe/"
(ii) "Click Wrap" signature; a text string simply indication
that the applicant has pressed the "OK" button on his
electronic filing software;
(b) Enhanced Electronic Signature
(i) PKCS#7 Signature
With other words: Receiving Offices are free at their discretion to
choose snake oil or virtually nothing instead of cryptographical
signatures.
6. Regarding text formatting, the WIPO paper starts with XML which
seems to be a well done choice. However, the text of patent
applications can also be filed in .PDF format (page 8, section 5.1.2)
"Acrobat V3 compatible" whatever that means. I would be happy to know
whether or not the .PDF data format is proprietary to ADOBE, Inc. or
a public standard managed by a proper standards body. Has it been
publicly disclosed at all? Or is the available knowledge on .PDF
based on some kind or reverse engineering?
7. All data constituting the PCT application are packaged into a
single container file using the ZIP format:
http://www.pkware.com/appnote.html
Again, this looks rather proprietary. Is it really a good idea to
rely on ZIP instead e.g. on MIME? Is there software avalilable under
the GNU GPL License for dealing with .ZIP formats?
I would appreciate to receive any hint regarding the above-mentioned
items.
Regards,
Axel H Horns
Patentanwalt
