-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A WIPO Document PCT/R/1/23 "REFORM OF THE PCT: SUBMISSIONS AND RESOLUTIONS BY CERTAIN NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNING ELECTRONIC FILING OF PATENT APPLICATIONS" is available under http://www.wipo.org/pct/en/reform/pdf/pct_r1_23.pdf Within the context of the desired reform of the PCT, standardisation of electronic filing procedures seems to be a critical issue. Relevant NGOs like the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI), the International Federation of Industrial Property Attorneys (FICPI) as well as the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) are demanding a global harmonisation of appropriate technical standards. But they are somewhat silent on the question of which technical particulars of such standard would be considered acceptable. What might be a suitable framework in this regard? From the perspective of a patent professional and based entirely on my personal opinion I would like to propose some points as listed below: 1. The technical standards for electronic filing must be be published in their entirety and in full detail. No NDA should be required before accessing the specification. Comment: There should be an open market for vendors of hardware and software for electronic filing. No barriers should prevent anyone who wants to enter that market to do so provided he has ability to ensure conformity with the standard. Publishing of all details on the web seems to be adequate. 2. The technical standards for electronic filing must be platform independent, i.e. no standards are deemed to be acceptable which require a certain computer platform, e.g. a particular hardware or operating system. Comment: Although Microsoft operating systems are widespread on IT systems of potential users of electronic filing systems, many of these users have a different IT infrastructure including Apple's MacOS, LINUX, HP-UX, and others. They all should have a fair chance to paticipate by means of a solution available on an open market without need to change the platform. 3. The technical standards for electronic filing must not make use of proprietary technology which is property of a single supplier or of a closed group of suppliers. In particular, no proprietary document data formats should be required by the standard. Comment: No fair and open market can grow if an essential technology of the electronic filing standard would be proprietary, e.g. patented or otherwise owned by a particular vendor. Hence, even if the proprietor of the technology would give a free license e.g. to a particular Patent Office, the problem would persist. With regard to document data formats, MS-WORD .doc format as well as ADOBE .pdf format are examples of proprietary formats which are not publicly disclosed in full detail. They can be altered by their proprietors deliberately and at will without notice. The relationship between the meaning of a text and the internal coding thereof is opaque. Contrasting and in terms of current technology, XML seems to be an appropriate tool for establishing open document data formats. 4. The technical standards for electronic filing should make use of a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for authentication purposes. Comment: There seems to be no real technological alternative to the utilization of asymmetric cryptography in conjunction with a PKI for authentication purposes. 5. The technical standards for electronic filing must not rely on a particular PKI offered only by a particular provider or by a closed group of providers. Comment: A PKI monopoly might well harm the existence of a market for electronic filing solutions. 6. The technical standards for electronic filing must not assign PKI functions to Patent Offices including the WIPO. Comment: A conflict of interest is inevitable if a dispute arises on the validity of a digital signature which has been created on the basis of a key pair created and certified by a Patent Office. The President of the Patent Office would be responsible for errors and misconduct in the context of the PKI system. Hence, the Office cannot be a 'neutral' entity in the course of a dispute in the context of proceedings based on electronic documents having a digital signature the validity thereof being disputed. 7. The technical standards for electronic filing should clearly separate the use of cryptography for authentication purposes on one hand and the use of cryptography for concealment purposes on the other hand. Comment: The objects to be solved are different and, hence, the technical means should also be allowed to be different. A chip card solution might be considered useful with regard to digital signatures but concealment might be done using OpenPGP or SSL. 8. The technical standards for electronic filing should have scalable interface specifications. Comments: Doing electronic filing should be possible e.g. by using a simple browser software (if only a single application or a few of them is to be filed) or by using an elaborate electronic filing server system on the user's side (if a lot of things are to be filed electronically). These 8 points clearly are not completely met by the current version of the EASY/EPOLINE software used or to be used by EPO, WIPO, and others. For example, at the time being epoline is effectively based on the .pdf document format. The role of the EPO in the context of the EPOLINE PKI is currently somewhat opaque. Mr. Bambridge has promised to introduce XML data formats and open PKI providers. We shall wait and see. The MIPEX project seems to be much more committed to open standards. However, the question is which influence MIPEX can have on the stage of a theatre where the 'big three' Patent Offices (US-PTO, EPO, JP-PTO) have already made their own decisions. I wonder whether it is useful at all - at least on the long run - that Patent Offices act as software suppliers. At the time being they give away their software for free, and most of the addressed professionals will accept these gifts most gratefully. And, for boosting developments in an initial pilot phase, creation and distribution of electronic filing software seem to be acceptable. However, in a long term perspective and under the current policy the control over the development of the electronic filing software remains solely with the Patent Offices. I beg for pardon but I think that a little doubt should be allowed on the long term fairness of a system of roles where the Patent Offices (or the WIPO on behalf of them) have complete control over a certain software architecture whereas their "customers" have none. I do not like the term "customers" in this context: The Patent Offices are Authorities privileged by Public Law, not service providers on a certain market. The "customers" of a Patent Office desiring a patent valid on a particular territory have in fact no choice to select concurring service providers on a "market": A Patent Office constitutea a monopoly by law (i.e., a European Patent can be obtained solely from the EPO; various national patents are aliuds not identical with the said European Patent). Therefore I think that, on the long run, Patent Offices should refrain from playing a role as software vendors, thereby respecting the monopoly role assigned to them by law with regard to their core functions. Or, otherwise, perhaps it might be an interesting idea to encourage the Patent Offices not only to give away their compiled binaries for free but to put the corresponding sources under the GPL. This would truly open the electronic filing business for other parties interested in that matter. But, anyway, the demand for a unified set of technical standards for electronic filing seems to be entirely justified. More awareness amongst the patent professionals should be created. Otherwise, in a few years they might realise that there is a rigid set of technical standards excellently mapping the requirements of the Patent Offices but not being adaptable to the various needs of a broad scale of users. Axel H Horns Patentanwalt European Patent Attorney European Trade Mark Attorney - - -- Patentanwalt Axel H Horns [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice ++49.89.30630112 Fax ++49.89.30630113 My PGP RSA Key is available, ID = 0xD8433289 PGP C5D2 5E53 D241 4988 17E4 904D 9467 31BC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8 iQEVAwUBOyUktXOKQLzYQzKJAQEcwAgAgVMElI/wDBMORbovmid+bd8qnAeTh0+i TywrsPDuhf8T3KGKPU0h6uUYx04sGo9aM/x8DyBjgTDa0GaXDY24zFOq3VwLr9Ys twDZo02+rAO7KnBrrX7g+kbAteANz9mnO/7oi0hbabL3wDh1H5LkkBu65BLt94ZI R+kPwRryZ34cLA3EMBGm/nhOC3/TE/xNS3Q+4/7nY39aNaAd9NO7d37vMVFeNQeF COjQJnqIfXPalXUJNl4av/anyHhSyccpxAPVsl8cdd+Mo3GlFKaavqqCP8Qvt/MQ j7ovmuIig5M16dcV2g3Fkq4zbjnYg2aQ9U5XCB97MwUUKrZEL/t2DA== =5ik7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
