RE: Patents can be for good, not only evil
Very few patents are on the light bulb. Most are on better filaments. This highlights one reason why the system encourages people to patent stuff. If I want to market foo, which is an improvement on bar, then the owner of the patent on bar hopefully wants access to my improvement foo, which entices them to cross-license. -Original Message- From: Peter Dambier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 8:39 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil There are 2 people who own every right on computers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage and programming http://www.agnesscott.edu/Lriddle/women/love.htm All patents therafter are infringements of the work of these two people. Well even those two people built on the work of other people. Kind regards Peter and Karin Dambier Steven M. Bellovin wrote: On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:02:10 -0700 Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric Burger wrote: I specifically applied for patents underlying the technology behind RFC 4722/RFC 5022 and RFC 4730 specifically to prevent third parties, who are not part of the IETF process, from extracting royalties from someone who implements MSCML or KPML. That was a waste of your time and money. Publication of those inventions by you, at zero cost to you and others, would have been sufficient to prevent someone else from trying to patent them. Next time, get good advice from a patent lawyer on how to achieve your goals without paying for a patent. You're obviously right in theory on this point. I wonder whether you're right in practice. We've all seen far too many really bad patents issued, ones where prior art is legion. The (U.S.) patent office seems to do a far better job of searching its own databases than it does the technical literature. I know there are many philosophical reasons why many people oppose software patents. But for others, there are very practical reasons: there are too many bad patents issued. I think we can all agree that stopping bad patents is a worthwhile goal, even if for some it's just an intermediate goal. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil
Excerpts from Hallam-Baker, Phillip on Wed, Oct 31, 2007 08:38:45AM -0700: How many Working Group participants who vent on patent issues have read RFC 3669? Of those who have read it, how many consider it to be binding? All RFC 3669 does is to allow endless discussion of topics that most WGs do not consider core. They may be important considerations but the Working Groups themselves are the wrong place to do design work in the IPR space. It was never intended to be binding in any way. We decided that there are no blanket rules or processes that can be applied to every IPR situation in every working group. Therefore we provided case studies and principles that they can use -- if they choose -- as guidance. Very few Working Group participants have any real interest or understanding of the patent system other than to wish it would go away. The most likely reason a WG participant would have detailed knowedge is if they were an unwilling participant in a patent lawsuit or had a proposal shot down because some group of lawyers objected to the IPR terms (both have happend to me). The bulk of the opinions expressed might be characterized as ideological rather than informed. So what we get as a result is not a useful discussion, its more like a slashdot flamewa Its not productive discussion, the arguments are entirely repetative. I agree with all of this but ... Eliminating repetative, unproductive arguments is the function of the charter. We write charters that rule technical issues such as designing a new PKI, Web Services transport layer, cryptographic algorithm, ct ct out of scope. So why not rule the IPR question out of scope at the charter stage unlss there is a specific reason to beleive that a WG would need to deal with it? ... because as has been stated several times, it is rare that a WG even knows the dimensions of possible IPR issues before they have got their ideas sorted out. Understanding the IPR landscape is one of the things I always try to do before starting or joining a group. IPR is always a BOF topic. It is not that we don't discuss in advance. In fact in many cases the whole raison d'etre for the group is to create an unencumbered standard to replace a proprietary protocol. IPR should be discussed at *every* stage. Just because you discuss it in a BOF doesn't mean you can mandate it out of existence later. For example, take a look at the Ford-Wienner key management patent which is due to expire at some point in the not so distant future. The invention describes a lightweight CRM scheme. I can well imagine that someone might want to start a working group to produce an unencumbered CRM protocol based on Ford-Wienner and S/MIME. The whole point of chartering a group of that type would be to produce a RANDZ protocol and so it should be stated in the charter. Or perhaps one that doesn't require a license at all. RANDZ is not the best outcome ... and yes, you could make statements like that in the charter (some have), but that doesn't mean a requirement is appropriate. I don't think that there are many cases where a non RANDZ IPR clause is going to fly. And yet they do, when people choose a slight encumbrance in order to gain utility within a certain scope of use. It's all about tradeoffs that can only be made once you know exactly what you're trading. If we have two technologies on offer, A and B from different parties I want to be able to set up a bidding war between the parties to offer the most favorable terms. Good idea ... but afaict most IPR claimants will want to know clearly how their IPR intersects with the technology being standardized before they play. That means you can't do this until late in the process. Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil
On 10/31/07, Russ Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI, unless you are subscribed to the license-discuss mailing list, YHBT. HTH. HAND. regards, alexander. -- He started where Prof. Patnaik left. He said that this was the first time that he has had the government people on his side! -- http://swatantryam.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil
In a first-to-invent regime, the law still favors one with a patent, since it gives one a cross-licensing opportunity to settle a dispute with a similar, infringed patent, even if one uses their patent only protectively. In a first-to-file regime, protective patents are absolutely necessary. I checked with Dan Ravicher. The proposed law would have no effect on criteria for prior art, so it doesn't make patents for defense either more or less necessary than they currently are. However, I agree with your main point, that there is no reason to reject a standard because of a patent, given a suitable royalty-free blanket license for using the patent. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Patents can be for good, not only evil
How many Working Group participants who vent on patent issues have read RFC 3669? Of those who have read it, how many consider it to be binding? All RFC 3669 does is to allow endless discussion of topics that most WGs do not consider core. They may be important considerations but the Working Groups themselves are the wrong place to do design work in the IPR space. Very few Working Group participants have any real interest or understanding of the patent system other than to wish it would go away. The most likely reason a WG participant would have detailed knowedge is if they were an unwilling participant in a patent lawsuit or had a proposal shot down because some group of lawyers objected to the IPR terms (both have happend to me). The bulk of the opinions expressed might be characterized as ideological rather than informed. So what we get as a result is not a useful discussion, its more like a slashdot flamewa Its not productive discussion, the arguments are entirely repetative. Eliminating repetative, unproductive arguments is the function of the charter. We write charters that rule technical issues such as designing a new PKI, Web Services transport layer, cryptographic algorithm, ct ct out of scope. So why not rule the IPR question out of scope at the charter stage unlss there is a specific reason to beleive that a WG would need to deal with it? A charter statement is never the final word, WGs discover that their charter needs changing all the time. If a group discovers that there are unforseen IPR issues it cannot resolve it has the choice of disbanding without a recommendation, rechartering or making non standards track submissions. Understanding the IPR landscape is one of the things I always try to do before starting or joining a group. IPR is always a BOF topic. It is not that we don't discuss in advance. In fact in many cases the whole raison d'etre for the group is to create an unencumbered standard to replace a proprietary protocol. For example, take a look at the Ford-Wienner key management patent which is due to expire at some point in the not so distant future. The invention describes a lightweight CRM scheme. I can well imagine that someone might want to start a working group to produce an unencumbered CRM protocol based on Ford-Wienner and S/MIME. The whole point of chartering a group of that type would be to produce a RANDZ protocol and so it should be stated in the charter. I don't think that there are many cases where a non RANDZ IPR clause is going to fly. About the only one I can think of offhand would be that we are comming to a situation where ECC crypto is becomming seen as necessary for certain applications. There are credible IPR claims to at least some methods of performing ECC crypto. There are certainly parties that see a need to deploy ECC before the IPR encumberances expire. The main objection to specifying IPR in a WG charter appears to be that it would prevent groups like S/MIME from considering ECC algorithms. While this would be true if S/MIME were rechartered with a restriction of that type I also think that its the wrong forum for the discussion. One WG chartered with applying ECC to all active IETF protocols would be a much more efficient approach and much more likely to provide a consistent result. I can even imagine that a WG of that type might have a time horizon. Allowing technologies to be considered if they will be available on RANDZ terms after a specific date. That would create an incentive for the Patent Rights Holder to remove ambiguity as to which patents are covered and when they expire. This might possibly provide an incentive for the Patent Rights Holder to renounce rights to certain claims after the time horizon expires in order to get their technology adopted. If we have two technologies on offer, A and B from different parties I want to be able to set up a bidding war between the parties to offer the most favorable terms. The current IETF practice looks more like the prisoners dilema, the rules of the game cause the parties to chose the worst outcome. Axelrod's point was you can change the rules of the game. From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 30/10/2007 1:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Patents can be for good, not only evil --On 29. oktober 2007 17:53 -0700 Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The notion that each IETF working group has to approach patent issues on its own, without help, is silly. It's also a straw man. RFC 3669. You may argue that we can do better, but the argument that there is no help is silly. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:38:45 -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How many Working Group participants who vent on patent issues have read RFC 3669? Of those who have read it, how many consider it to be binding? It's not binding because it's Informational. However, the topic is frequently covered in WG Chair training sessions. There's a prominent link to IPR issues on the WG Chair's page, including a separate Wiki just on IPR (and the introduction page there explicitly cites 3669). That's not a substitute for all WG participants knowing it, but I'd guess that most chairs do, and can bring it up as appropriate. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Patents can be for good, not only evil
Looking at the final office actions from some of my own applications I absolutely agree with Steve here. It is pretty clear that the only database that the USPTO can search effectively is its own. One of the reasons I file patents is to smoke out patent claims filed by others. The USPTO is the most effective method available. Compared to the expense of a patent lawsuit the cost is negligible. -Original Message- From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 7:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:02:10 -0700 Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric Burger wrote: I specifically applied for patents underlying the technology behind RFC 4722/RFC 5022 and RFC 4730 specifically to prevent third parties, who are not part of the IETF process, from extracting royalties from someone who implements MSCML or KPML. That was a waste of your time and money. Publication of those inventions by you, at zero cost to you and others, would have been sufficient to prevent someone else from trying to patent them. Next time, get good advice from a patent lawyer on how to achieve your goals without paying for a patent. You're obviously right in theory on this point. I wonder whether you're right in practice. We've all seen far too many really bad patents issued, ones where prior art is legion. The (U.S.) patent office seems to do a far better job of searching its own databases than it does the technical literature. I know there are many philosophical reasons why many people oppose software patents. But for others, there are very practical reasons: there are too many bad patents issued. I think we can all agree that stopping bad patents is a worthwhile goal, even if for some it's just an intermediate goal. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Patents can be for good, not only evil
That was a waste of your time and money. Publication of those inventions by you, at zero cost to you and others, would have been sufficient to prevent someone else from trying to patent them. Next time, get good advice from a patent lawyer on how to achieve your goals without paying for a patent. Perhaps he did consult a lawyer and learned that by patenting them he now has the ability to sue any non-licenced implementors in court, and can take away a share of any earnings that they made with their non-licenced implementation. That is not possible merely by publishing first. Law is every bit as complex as network protocols or application programming. It is better to consult with an expert in the field before making assumptions. I am not a lawyer. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil
More to the point, patent law is one of the only two areas of law where you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. The other is tax law. Yes, I could have simply published the work. That establishes prior art. However, let us consider this very real (I have experienced it) scenario. 1. I invent something. It is generally useful, yet I don't think I'll get rich on the idea. 2. I publish the invention, to put a stake in the ground, hoping to put the invention into the commons. 3. Someone else, without knowledge of my publication, invents something similar, or the same, and patents the invention. 4. That someone else sues people over my invention. 5. I am now facing US$ 250,000 minimum, US$ 1,000,000 typical, in legal fees to invalidate the patent issued in step 3. 6. I would win the case, because I have the prior art. However, I am not stupid, so I begrudgingly pay $40,000 for the privilege of using my own invention and not paying tons of legal fees. This is why I call it inoculation. US$ 12,000 in legal and filing fees today has a 20x - 80x return on investment protection. Is the system stupid? Unquestionably. Is it the system? Yes. On 10/30/07 2:52 AM, Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I am rather getting tired of 100+ email addresses in the to: field. Pine also doesn't allow reply-all to the bcc: field. I'm thinking of creating a new list of everyone that posts to the IETF list. Thoughts?] On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Eric Burger wrote: I specifically applied for patents underlying the technology behind RFC 4722/RFC 5022 and RFC 4730 specifically to prevent third parties, who are not part of the IETF process, from extracting royalties from someone who implements MSCML or KPML. That was a waste of your time and money. Publication of those inventions by you, at zero cost to you and others, would have been sufficient to prevent someone else from trying to patent them. Next time, get good advice from a patent lawyer on how to achieve your goals without paying for a patent. This was true only in the U.S., and will not be true once the senate passes the first-to-file legislation that recently passed the house. Once first-to-file is put into effect, everyone has to race to the patent office. It doesn't matter who invented what. However, years ago legislation passed that grandfather'd the original inventor; the original inventor can't be charged fees. However, the original inventor can't change the royalty structure imposed by the first filer. For those here who keep asking for protection against patents in standards, there is no more effective technique than through a revised IPR policy that prohibits patent-encumbered standards from gaining the IETF brand in the first place. This sounds like a good idea at first. However, the LPF has long promoted protective patents: http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/mutual-def.html It would be a bad idea to prohibit all patents in standards. In a first-to-invent regime, the law still favors one with a patent, since it gives one a cross-licensing opportunity to settle a dispute with a similar, infringed patent, even if one uses their patent only protectively. In a first-to-file regime, protective patents are absolutely necessary. The U.S. is treaty-bound (GATT) to implement first-to-file patent law. The House recently passed this legislation, and I think it is expected to pass the Senate, but the Senate hasn't yet voted. I'm a little uneasy about changing the IETF patent policy. First, the current policy has exactly the right idea: consider the patent and its license, and make a smart decision. If one follows the rules honestly, the rules are just right. Second, the people most in favor of changing it are the very ones who silenced me, and who are generally pro-patent. They were the same ones who said that RFC 3979 wasn't the policy of the IETF. When we look closely at the proposed document, it has ambiguities (already noticed by others) that don't distinguish free-as-in-beer from free-as-in-freedom. The only thing I might recommend changing about the present policy is to add a definite mandatory penalty for deceiving the IETF. I think we need more honesty and accountability in the leadership of the IETF before we make such changes. --Dean Dean Anderson President of the League for Programming Freedom -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have
RE: Patents can be for good, not only evil
I specifically applied for patents underlying the technology behind RFC 4722/RFC 5022 and RFC 4730 specifically to prevent third parties, who are not part of the IETF process, from extracting royalties from someone who implements MSCML or KPML. That was a waste of your time and money. Publication of those inventions by you, at zero cost to you and others, would have been sufficient to prevent someone else from trying to patent them. Quite untrue, in my experience. The patent examiners almost never find prior art from the open literature. Their decisions are based on their databases of existing patents. So althought you are quite right in principle, open publication has low probability of blocking someone from getting a patent. Fighting a granted patent on the base of open publication prior art would cost much more. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Patents can be for good, not only evil
Larry Sorry that I answered before seeing that others had already said the same thing. However, even after reading your subsequent email, I am unconvinced. Requesting a re-examination is a lengthy process, and if unsuccessful further strengthens the party holding the patent (as it has gone through 2 examinations). On the other hand, the patent holder can force you to respond in a Texas court within 30 days, incurring the costs of representation. BTW, this kind of patent busting is hardly new. There used to be a patent busters site where bounties were offered. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Patents can be for good, not only evil
--On 29. oktober 2007 17:53 -0700 Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The notion that each IETF working group has to approach patent issues on its own, without help, is silly. It's also a straw man. RFC 3669. You may argue that we can do better, but the argument that there is no help is silly. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil
Eric Burger wrote: 5. I am now facing US$ 250,000 minimum, US$ 1,000,000 typical, in legal fees to invalidate the patent issued in step 3. From what I've been told, $1M is more like the entry fee for this contest, if the patent holder has any tenacity at all. And if they do, it gets a lot higher, quickly. 6. I would win the case, because I have the prior art. However, I am not stupid, so I begrudgingly pay $40,000 for the privilege of using my own invention and not paying tons of legal fees. Again, from what I've been told, your assertion is far too optimistic. The realities of challenging a patent are not nearly that deterministic. At a minimum, the human frailties of judges and juries makes it a gamble whether they will agree that a particular piece of prior art is, indeed, prior art. Let's remember that patents are about technical things, and judges and juries -- no matter how diligent and well-intentioned, are not classed as 'skilled in the art'. So their understanding of issues and details is typically going to be significantly constrained, no matter how well the issues are presented to them. All of which serves to strengthen your argument in favor of defensively patenting the prior art. This is why I call it inoculation. US$ 12,000 in legal and filing fees today has a 20x - 80x return on investment protection. But that's real money for an individual to spend. And real hassle. It's asking rather a lot to expect folks to a) think of their work as prior art, b) take the time, and c) spend the money just for the greater good. That's assuming they can afford the time and money. Is the system stupid? Unquestionably. Is it the system? Yes. Public review during the final stages of patenting has struck me as a particularly constructive effort. Whether it works, I've no idea. As noted, patent officers are human too. But from what I've seen of patent file wrappers, the patent officers generally do seem to look for real prior art, albeit not as widely as we would wish. But, then, they operate under serious time and resource constraints. Input from the public would help counter this. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil
Hi Eric, I generally agree, that patents are not *necessarily* evil ... just that they can be, so need to err on the side of caution. Phil Zimmerman has applied for patents in ZRTP, specifically to ensure that all implementations fully conform with the specification. Cost to license for a conformant specification? $0. Cost to not really provide privacy but claim to be implementing ZRTP? Costly! Cannot resist: I believe it was Dean Willis that described this approach as brilliantly evil a couple of IETF meets ago... ;- -- Peter Eric Burger [EMAIL PROTECTED] 29.10.07 17:16 To: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject:Patents can be for good, not only evil I would offer that patents are NOT categorically evil. Phil Zimmerman has applied for patents in ZRTP, specifically to ensure that all implementations fully conform with the specification. Cost to license for a conformant specification? $0. Cost to not really provide privacy but claim to be implementing ZRTP? Costly! I specifically applied for patents underlying the technology behind RFC 4722/RFC 5022 and RFC 4730 specifically to prevent third parties, who are not part of the IETF process, from extracting royalties from someone who implements MSCML or KPML. Cost to license? $0. Cost to sue someone who infringes said third-party's IPR? That depends, but at least we raised the cost of shutting down an IETF standard. Remember, just because *you* do not have IPR in an IETF standard does not mean someone *else* has IPR in the standard. If that someone else does not participate in the IETF or, for that matter, happen to not participate in the work group or, in reality, are not editors of a document, they can fully apply their IPR against the standard once it issues. I like to have a little inoculation against that situation in the stuff I submit. -Original Message- From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 4:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: When is using patented technology appropriate? Lawrence Rosen wrote: Keith Moore wrote: For several reasons, it is difficult to imagine an IETF-wide procedure that allows the existence of a patent to trump other considerations of protocol feasibility and deployability: Who suggested otherwise? It is not the existence of the patent that matters, but its unavailability under license terms that allow implementation in *any* software. _and_ its validity, _and_ its applicability, both of which can be subjective and difficult to determine conclusively without long delays and excessive expense. so we have to make judgments. and by we I mean individuals participating in IETF, not IETF itself. The more feasible and deployable the protocol, the more important will be FOSS implementations. only relative to other protocols in the same space. granted that patents are the bane of any open standards-making organization, because patents do exactly the opposite of what open standards do. at the same time, we can't let FUD about patents become a denial of service attack to IETF efforts. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Patents can be for good, not only evil
Phil's strategy here is not without issues. This was raised during the W3C discussion when IBM pointed out at length that a license fee can be considerably less of an inconvenience than certain Zero fee licenses. So for example a requirement that you can only implement a protocol using Java (or chose your language). Or use certain cipher suites, or a directory root controlled by the patent holder, or any number of similar schemes. Defensive patents are certainly an acceptable practice, one that I would like to see encouraged. At this point I believe that you would find 95% of corporate patent lawyers at Internet companies would rank defending against patent lawsuits as a much higher priority than recovering revenue. One of the problems I see here is that engineers can be dissuaded from applying for defensive patents as doing so is likely to lead to them being held up for ridicule on forums like Slashdot. This is particular the case with defensive security patents which make claims against specific attacks against a system. The point here being not to sell products that implement the attack but to prevent others from doing so. -Original Message- From: Eric Burger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 5:16 PM To: Keith Moore; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Patents can be for good, not only evil I would offer that patents are NOT categorically evil. Phil Zimmerman has applied for patents in ZRTP, specifically to ensure that all implementations fully conform with the specification. Cost to license for a conformant specification? $0. Cost to not really provide privacy but claim to be implementing ZRTP? Costly! I specifically applied for patents underlying the technology behind RFC 4722/RFC 5022 and RFC 4730 specifically to prevent third parties, who are not part of the IETF process, from extracting royalties from someone who implements MSCML or KPML. Cost to license? $0. Cost to sue someone who infringes said third-party's IPR? That depends, but at least we raised the cost of shutting down an IETF standard. Remember, just because *you* do not have IPR in an IETF standard does not mean someone *else* has IPR in the standard. If that someone else does not participate in the IETF or, for that matter, happen to not participate in the work group or, in reality, are not editors of a document, they can fully apply their IPR against the standard once it issues. I like to have a little inoculation against that situation in the stuff I submit. -Original Message- From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 4:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: When is using patented technology appropriate? Lawrence Rosen wrote: Keith Moore wrote: For several reasons, it is difficult to imagine an IETF-wide procedure that allows the existence of a patent to trump other considerations of protocol feasibility and deployability: Who suggested otherwise? It is not the existence of the patent that matters, but its unavailability under license terms that allow implementation in *any* software. _and_ its validity, _and_ its applicability, both of which can be subjective and difficult to determine conclusively without long delays and excessive expense. so we have to make judgments. and by we I mean individuals participating in IETF, not IETF itself. The more feasible and deployable the protocol, the more important will be FOSS implementations. only relative to other protocols in the same space. granted that patents are the bane of any open standards-making organization, because patents do exactly the opposite of what open standards do. at the same time, we can't let FUD about patents become a denial of service attack to IETF efforts. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Patents can be for good, not only evil
Eric Burger wrote: I specifically applied for patents underlying the technology behind RFC 4722/RFC 5022 and RFC 4730 specifically to prevent third parties, who are not part of the IETF process, from extracting royalties from someone who implements MSCML or KPML. That was a waste of your time and money. Publication of those inventions by you, at zero cost to you and others, would have been sufficient to prevent someone else from trying to patent them. Next time, get good advice from a patent lawyer on how to achieve your goals without paying for a patent. Remember, just because *you* do not have IPR in an IETF standard does not mean someone *else* has IPR in the standard. If that someone else does not participate in the IETF or, for that matter, happen to not participate in the work group or, in reality, are not editors of a document, they can fully apply their IPR against the standard once it issues. Right! And that's why every one of the FOSS-compatible patent grants to IETF, W3C or OASIS includes defensive termination provisions. We also want to protect standards against patent threats by third parties, and defensive provisions are consistent with FOSS licenses. For those here who keep asking for protection against patents in standards, there is no more effective technique than through a revised IPR policy that prohibits patent-encumbered standards from gaining the IETF brand in the first place. /Larry -Original Message- From: Eric Burger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 2:16 PM To: Keith Moore; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Patents can be for good, not only evil I would offer that patents are NOT categorically evil. Phil Zimmerman has applied for patents in ZRTP, specifically to ensure that all implementations fully conform with the specification. Cost to license for a conformant specification? $0. Cost to not really provide privacy but claim to be implementing ZRTP? Costly! I specifically applied for patents underlying the technology behind RFC 4722/RFC 5022 and RFC 4730 specifically to prevent third parties, who are not part of the IETF process, from extracting royalties from someone who implements MSCML or KPML. Cost to license? $0. Cost to sue someone who infringes said third-party's IPR? That depends, but at least we raised the cost of shutting down an IETF standard. Remember, just because *you* do not have IPR in an IETF standard does not mean someone *else* has IPR in the standard. If that someone else does not participate in the IETF or, for that matter, happen to not participate in the work group or, in reality, are not editors of a document, they can fully apply their IPR against the standard once it issues. I like to have a little inoculation against that situation in the stuff I submit. -Original Message- From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 4:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: When is using patented technology appropriate? Lawrence Rosen wrote: Keith Moore wrote: For several reasons, it is difficult to imagine an IETF-wide procedure that allows the existence of a patent to trump other considerations of protocol feasibility and deployability: Who suggested otherwise? It is not the existence of the patent that matters, but its unavailability under license terms that allow implementation in *any* software. _and_ its validity, _and_ its applicability, both of which can be subjective and difficult to determine conclusively without long delays and excessive expense. so we have to make judgments. and by we I mean individuals participating in IETF, not IETF itself. The more feasible and deployable the protocol, the more important will be FOSS implementations. only relative to other protocols in the same space. granted that patents are the bane of any open standards-making organization, because patents do exactly the opposite of what open standards do. at the same time, we can't let FUD about patents become a denial of service attack to IETF efforts. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Patents can be for good, not only evil
Steven Bellovin wrote: We've all seen far too many really bad patents issued, ones where prior art is legion. The (U.S.) patent office seems to do a far better job of searching its own databases than it does the technical literature. I know there are many philosophical reasons why many people oppose software patents. But for others, there are very practical reasons: there are too many bad patents issued. I think we can all agree that stopping bad patents is a worthwhile goal, even if for some it's just an intermediate goal. The times they are a-changin'. [1] Please take a look at what's happening at http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/. This is a GREAT place for the technical experts in IETF to become involved in busting bad patents before they are issued. After patents are issued, busting them nowadays is also easier than it used to be if we can present prior art to support reexamination by the PTO. Take a look at what's happening at http://www.pubpat.org/. The notion that each IETF working group has to approach patent issues on its own, without help, is silly. Set an enforceable IETF patent policy for free and open standards, and bring the technical community together through these groups (and others!) to bust the bad patents we encounter, and I think our problems with patents will ease substantially. /Larry BCC: Beth Noveck and Dan Ravicher [1] By Bob Dylan: Come gather 'round people Wherever you roam And admit that the waters Around you have grown And accept it that soon You'll be drenched to the bone. If your time to you Is worth savin' Then you better start swimmin' Or you'll sink like a stone For the times they are a-changin'. Come writers and critics Who prophesize with your pen And keep your eyes wide The chance won't come again And don't speak too soon For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin'. For the loser now Will be later to win For the times they are a-changin'. Come senators, congressmen Please heed the call Don't stand in the doorway Don't block up the hall For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled There's a battle outside And it is ragin'. It'll soon shake your windows And rattle your walls For the times they are a-changin'. Come mothers and fathers Throughout the land And don't criticize What you can't understand Your sons and your daughters Are beyond your command Your old road is Rapidly agin'. Please get out of the new one If you can't lend your hand For the times they are a-changin'. The line it is drawn The curse it is cast The slow one now Will later be fast As the present now Will later be past The order is Rapidly fadin'. And the first one now Will later be last For the times they are a-changin'. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil
There are 2 people who own every right on computers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage and programming http://www.agnesscott.edu/Lriddle/women/love.htm All patents therafter are infringements of the work of these two people. Well even those two people built on the work of other people. Kind regards Peter and Karin Dambier Steven M. Bellovin wrote: On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:02:10 -0700 Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric Burger wrote: I specifically applied for patents underlying the technology behind RFC 4722/RFC 5022 and RFC 4730 specifically to prevent third parties, who are not part of the IETF process, from extracting royalties from someone who implements MSCML or KPML. That was a waste of your time and money. Publication of those inventions by you, at zero cost to you and others, would have been sufficient to prevent someone else from trying to patent them. Next time, get good advice from a patent lawyer on how to achieve your goals without paying for a patent. You're obviously right in theory on this point. I wonder whether you're right in practice. We've all seen far too many really bad patents issued, ones where prior art is legion. The (U.S.) patent office seems to do a far better job of searching its own databases than it does the technical literature. I know there are many philosophical reasons why many people oppose software patents. But for others, there are very practical reasons: there are too many bad patents issued. I think we can all agree that stopping bad patents is a worthwhile goal, even if for some it's just an intermediate goal. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: You're obviously right in theory on this point. I wonder whether you're right in practice. We've all seen far too many really bad patents issued, ones where prior art is legion. ... I think we can all agree that stopping bad patents is a worthwhile goal, even if for some it's just an intermediate goal. +1 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 18:26 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: Steven M. Bellovin wrote: You're obviously right in theory on this point. I wonder whether you're right in practice. We've all seen far too many really bad patents issued, ones where prior art is legion. ... I think we can all agree that stopping bad patents is a worthwhile goal, even if for some it's just an intermediate goal. +1 me too, +2 ;; -- You can start by acting like a man. LIKE A MAN! -- Vito Corleone, Chapter 1, page 36 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Patents can be for good, not only evil
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:53:35 -0700 Lawrence Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steven Bellovin wrote: We've all seen far too many really bad patents issued, ones where prior art is legion. The (U.S.) patent office seems to do a far better job of searching its own databases than it does the technical literature. I know there are many philosophical reasons why many people oppose software patents. But for others, there are very practical reasons: there are too many bad patents issued. I think we can all agree that stopping bad patents is a worthwhile goal, even if for some it's just an intermediate goal. The times they are a-changin'. [1] Yup, I remember it from when it was new Please take a look at what's happening at http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/. This is a GREAT place for the technical experts in IETF to become involved in busting bad patents before they are issued. You raise an interesting point. Some years ago, the conventional wisdom was that it was a bad idea to oppose patents at that point, since any prior art introduced at that point were considered known by the patent office, and hence not usable to challenge the patent later. Objections based on such papers are reflected in the file wrapper, but not always in the language of the specification or the claims. In my experience, concessions by the applicant reflected there are not always understood by judges and/or juries. After patents are issued, busting them nowadays is also easier than it used to be if we can present prior art to support reexamination by the PTO. Take a look at what's happening at http://www.pubpat.org/. Does it actually work in practice, when someone has filed a (preposterous) infringement suit and each side is hiring expensive experts? (Re-examination didn't seem to work for RIM.) --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Patents can be for good, not only evil
At 5:53 PM -0700 10/29/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: \The notion that each IETF working group has to approach patent issues on its own, without help, is silly. Set an enforceable IETF patent policy for free and open standards, and bring the technical community together through these groups (and others!) to bust the bad patents we encounter, and I think our problems with patents will ease substantially. This is a strawman. The IETF's patent policy is known: we require participants to NOTE it WELL all the time. Working groups do and should evaluate the known IPR landscape around their work, but presuming, as you do above, that all patents are bad patents which participants should spend their efforts busting is just wrong. There are patents that advance the art, and the IETF has clearly shown in the past its willingness to adapt to them when it needs to. I'd also say that IETF participants who spent their timing trying to bust patents on the lines of those Eric mentioned at the start of this thread are wasting their time. If the license doesn't stop implementation, the effort seems to me, personally, as better spent elsewhere. I've cc'ed the IPR working group, and I suggest follow-ups go there, as Brian has suggested. Travel will make me a bit late in reading replies, by the way; no offense intended. regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
