US patents) suggest
that US officials are starting to understand the proper way to handle
standards-essential patents, that is, patented inventions which are
incorporated into standards and the patent owner has promised to
license under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. It seems
Recent actions by the US Department of Justice, the US Patent Office,
the US Federal Trade Commission (which handles antitrust and consumer
protection matters), and the US International Trade Commission (which
has the power to exclude imports which violate US patents) suggest
that US officials
violate US patents) suggest
that US officials are starting to understand the proper way to handle
standards-essential patents, that is, patented inventions which are
incorporated into standards and the patent owner has promised to
license under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. It seems
tglassey == tglassey tglas...@earthlink.net writes:
tglassey What do you do where a patent predates any standards use of the
IP. I
tglassey understand the issues of developing IP but what about IP that
already existed
tglassey before the standards processes incorporated it into
FYI; this seems relevant to us:
Tech Rivals Push Copycats Battle To The Hill
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78219.html
Excerpts:
Apple and Microsoft are telling regulators and lawmakers that not all patents
are created equal. They say patents that have been developed by companies
Hi, Thx for your comments. Private walled garden creates lots of
interoperabilty issues. In the long term with deployments in the
field, even after the expiry of patents we end up for a workable
solution to carry unnecessary burden. e.g. I 'GUESS' pains of htonl
etc are due to patents. IMHO we
The patent would have expired by now?
On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Samir Srivastava wrote:
Hi, Thx for your comments. Private walled garden creates lots of
interoperabilty issues. In the long term with deployments in the
field, even after the expiry of patents we end up for a workable
Hi, Refer http://samirsrivastava.typepad.com for posting on Standards
And Patents. Copyright of posting on Standards And Patents is free for
personal usage. Arguments were presented in favour of that standards
and their usage should be free from patents. If standards are
patentable
On 27/Jul/11 08:07, Samir Srivastava wrote:
Standards are developed by community for community. There is no
role of patent hunters in that.
I agree, with the exception of defensive patents, some of which are
announced with very elegant disclosures. Let's draw a veil over
incomprehensible
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com writes:
On 2009-12-01 23:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com writes:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/30/2009 10:11 AM:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I
Simon Josefsson writes:
Arnt Gulbrandsen a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no writes:
Simon Josefsson writes:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people participate, and disclose patents
Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Simon Josefsson writes:
Arnt Gulbrandsen a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no writes:
Simon Josefsson writes:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people participate
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com writes:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/30/2009 10:11 AM:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF
On 2009-12-01 23:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com writes:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/30/2009 10:11 AM:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people
. This is strongly
in the company's interests, anyway, since failure to disclose when
required by a standards process threatens the validity of the patent.
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people
behaves as a good citizen in its standards activities. This is strongly
in the company's interests, anyway, since failure to disclose when
required by a standards process threatens the validity of the patent.
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far
Simon Josefsson writes:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF is easy
to work around by having two persons in an organization doing
Arnt Gulbrandsen a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no writes:
Simon Josefsson writes:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF is easy
to work around
in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF is easy to
work around by having two persons in an organization doing different
things: one works on specifying and standardizing
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 18:50 +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Arnt Gulbrandsen a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no writes:
Simon Josefsson writes:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people
Arnt Gulbrandsen [mailto://a...@gulbrandsen.priv.no] writes:
Simon Josefsson writes:
There is no requirement in the IETF process for organizations to
disclose patents as far as I can see. The current approach of only
having people participate, and disclose patents, in the IETF is easy
On 2009-11-24 06:44, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/23/2009 5:03 AM:
John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from his
company, and I think the same applies to most
Of
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:40 PM
To: John C Klensin
Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores
IETF IPRrules)
FWIW, I agree with Brian. Pulling this (waiting until the IESG
approves and only
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
John-Luc, I would like to understand if RIM's recent IPR disclosures
affect general use of application/3gpp-ims+xml, or only its specific use
as described in draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-body-handling.
Thank you,
Alexey
P.S. I understand that my question might
of what passes for Rescindable,
preferring instead to do without at the time the disclosure is made. A BCP
stating, Patents are a nuisance, be told, and we'd sooner be without them.
would seem to suit us well in cases where outsiders might otherwise be tempted
to play fast and loose
Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com writes:
John-Luc:
I am sending this note to help you understand the IETF IPR policies;
they are fully described in BCP 79
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/bcp/bcp79.txt). I hope this note clarifies
the responsibilities of RIM employees (and anyone else) who
On Mon Nov 23 10:03:25 2009, Simon Josefsson wrote:
John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from his
company, and I think the same applies to most employees of larger
organizations. There is nothing explicit in BCP 79 to protect
against
this apparent conflict of interest, or
Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net writes:
On Mon Nov 23 10:03:25 2009, Simon Josefsson wrote:
John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from his
company, and I think the same applies to most employees of larger
organizations. There is nothing explicit in BCP 79 to protect
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/23/2009 5:03 AM:
John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from his
company, and I think the same applies to most employees of larger
organizations. There is nothing explicit in BCP 79 to protect against
this apparent conflict of interest,
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:16:49 -0500
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon Josefsson allegedly wrote on 11/23/2009 5:03 AM:
John-Luc said he is bound by confidentiality obligations from his
company, and I think the same applies to most employees of larger
organizations. There is
, the IESG approved the registration of
application/3gpp-ims+xml Media Type. On Nov 2, RIM filed an IPR
disclosure related to this at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1219/
The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is at
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GEBAJ
and the related draft
This was the case in the past. Recently one of my lawyers suggested
that this is not necessarily the case at present. The USPTO appears to
be (slowly) getting its act together.
While USPTO behavior has been rent-seeking in recent years, preferring
to issue stupid patents rather than risk being
Russ Housley wrote:
John-Luc:
I am sending this note to help you understand the IETF IPR policies;
they are fully described in BCP 79
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/bcp/bcp79.txt). I hope this note clarifies
the responsibilities of RIM employees (and anyone else) who
participate in IETF.
IETF
John-Luc:
I am sending this note to help you understand the IETF IPR policies;
they are fully described in BCP 79
(http://www.ietf.org/rfc/bcp/bcp79.txt). I hope this note clarifies
the responsibilities of RIM employees (and anyone else) who
participate in IETF.
IETF participants engage
In this particular case, the patent was published on Jan. 4, 2007, so
it's difficult to imagine any valid reason to not have disclosed then.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
In my company's case, we file IPR disclosures on patent applications as
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Baker
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 8:53 PM
To: Michael Montemurro
Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
In my
-Original Message-
From: Contreras, Jorge
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 2:38 PM
To: 'Fred Baker'; Michael Montemurro
Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: RE: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun
patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
In my company's case, we file IPR disclosures on patent
applications as well as allowed claims. That is consistent with our
corporate policy of encouraging innovation and patenting
defensively; our disclosures as a rule include the fact that we do
Cullen Jennings wrote:
On October 8, the IESG approved the registration of
application/3gpp-ims+xml Media Type. On Nov 2, RIM filed an IPR
disclosure related to this at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1219/
The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is at
http://www.google.com/patents?id
Cullen Jennings wrote:
I'd like to draw peoples attention to the IPR disclosure
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1213
on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn
The associated patent seems to be
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=O7qXEBAJ
Let me point out Mr
2, RIM filed an
IPR disclosure related to this at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1219/
The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is at
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GEBAJ
and the related draft is
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-
body-handling
, is at
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GEBAJ
and the related draft is
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-body-handling
Quite aside from the question of what the IESG should do about the
registration, my reading of this patent finds nothing novel. Almost all
FWIW, I agree with Brian. Pulling this (waiting until the IESG
approves and only then filing the disclosure) on a media type
registration seems particularly egregious but is, in any event,
exactly the type of situation the IPR rules are intended to
prevent. Like him, I believe that the IESG
disclosure related to
this at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1219/
The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is at
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GEBAJ
and the related draft is
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-body-handling
Quite aside from
Rescinding RFCs-to-be only based on late disclosures may set
a precedence for the future we may not like.
Doing so would provide an incentive for the patent holder to delay disclosure
until after the RFC is issued.
IETF lacks a censure policy for such violations. Maybe we need one.
-d
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:51:16AM -0800, Stephan Wenger wrote:
The mechanisms to challenge the validity of a patent depend on the
legislation. In the US, one example is a request for re-examination. A
good foundation for such a request would be the presence of Prior Art not
considered
Hi Ted,
I believe you are right.
Let me further add a) it's IMO foolish to attempt to force re-examination
without a *good* patent lawyer (even if it's allowed in the US), and b)
that, AFAIK, this aspect of the perceived brokenness of the patent system is
not local to the US.
Stephan
On
To: John C Klensin
Cc: Cullen Jennings; IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: RIM patents using a mime body in a message (and ignores
IETF IPRrules)
FWIW, I agree with Brian. Pulling this (waiting until the IESG
approves and only then filing the disclosure) on a media type
registration seems
Dear all,
I understand the community’s concerns regarding the timeliness of the
disclosure. As I’m sure everyone can understand, as employees of
companies we are bound by confidentiality obligations and, in
addition, cannot always control our company’s internal processes. The
community’s
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:38:26PM -0500, Michael Montemurro wrote:
Dear all,
I understand the community’s concerns regarding the timeliness of the
disclosure. As I’m sure everyone can understand, as employees of
companies we are bound by confidentiality obligations and, in
addition,
Hi -
From: Michael Montemurro montemurro.mich...@gmail.com
To: IETF-Discussion list ietf@ietf.org; Cullen Jennings
flu...@cisco.com
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: RIM patents a URN (and ignores IETF IPR rules)
...
My company
has asked for your patience while
In my company's case, we file IPR disclosures on patent applications
as well as allowed claims. That is consistent with our corporate
policy of encouraging innovation and patenting defensively; our
disclosures as a rule include the fact that we do not seek monetary
reward unless another
The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is at
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GEBAJ
and the related draft is
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-body-handling
Quite aside from the question of what the IESG should do about the
registration, my reading
I'd like to draw peoples attention to the IPR disclosure
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1213
on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn
The associated patent seems to be
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=O7qXEBAJ
Let me point out Mr. Allen is an author of both
On October 8, the IESG approved the registration of application/3gpp-
ims+xml Media Type. On Nov 2, RIM filed an IPR disclosure related to
this at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1219/
The associated patent, filed Oct 2008, is at
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GEBAJ
2008, is at
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Mk7GEBAJ
and the related draft is
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bakker-sipping-3gpp-ims-xml-body-handling
I will note John-Luc Bakker from RIM is an author of both the patent
and and the draft. The draft has been widely discussed
On Wed Jul 29 19:41:58 2009, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
I agree completely with Richard Stallman's responses to an earlier
email. I
repeat the relevant parts of that earlier exchange below. This
reflects a
basic policy that should be adopted by IETF.
I'm not in favour of software patents
when we have IPR disclosures,
they are often for patent applications, which are not public, nor have
they been issued (so they are only potential patents). In such cases,
there is precious little an advisory board could tell us, other than
we don't know...
Thomas
Powers Chuck-RXCP20 chuck.pow...@motorola.com wrote:
If the technology in the document to be standardized is
unencumbered, then the fact that _some_ uses of that technology may
run into encumbered territory is irrelevant, except to those who
hate patents in general.
I think software patents
discussion
The solution is to remove any items claimed to be patented, or else
follow the EU's requirements for open standard and put in writing that
there are no constraints on re-use. Grant the copyright and patents
irrevocably, royalty-free for implementation, use and distribution
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
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
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!
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
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
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
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
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
, 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
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
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
--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
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
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
(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
be implemented with permission of and payment
to a software patent holder is no standard at all.
As you know so well, software patents have no place in public standards.
Thank you for the chance to comment, and all your efforts!
Karl Berry (programmer
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
!) 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
well, software patents have no place in public standards.
Thank you for the chance to comment, and all your efforts!
Karl Berry (programmer)
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
year terms to 21 year
terms as required by GATT.
Unlike ESR, I think that it's possible to find such a rational fashion
within the formal structure of the present IETF IPR rules - that we have a
number of patents on IETF-specified technology that do not create any
problem for implementors
At 09:50 11/10/2004, Dean Anderson wrote:
Rather, its the truly novel patents that cause the most damage. They have
the potential to cripple entire subject areas. Being truly novel, they
won't be reversed, and will stand. And being novel, they may be hard or
impossible to overlap and cross
structure of the present IETF IPR rules - that we have a
number of patents on IETF-specified technology that do not create any
problem for implementors, and that we need to build on and extend those
examples into true best current practices (the OTHER meaning of the term,
not IETF rules).
I
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I do think we (the community) have a chance at finding ways to render those
patents that crop up in the commons harmless.
And what ways would those be?
--
a href=http://www.catb.org/~esr/;Eric S. Raymond
--On 5. oktober 2004 10:35 -0400 Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I do think we (the community) have a chance at finding ways to render
those patents that crop up in the commons harmless.
And what ways would those be?
One posting I found
On 5-okt-04, at 18:22, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I have not been able to get any patent lawyers interested in
pursuing/spearheading this train of thought.
It is generally accepted that the turkey gets no say when deciding the
christmas day menu.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If it was possible to set up things in such a way that it was easy for a
company to declare no first use on a patent in the space of standards
implementation, and very disruptive for a company to renege on such a
promise (for instance, by having
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Dan Kolis wrote:
Dean Anderson said, and is
While finding prior art is hard problem in any field, it would be helpful
if the Patent Office hired more experts in the fields that they offer
patents in, and in particular, more computer scientists.
Dan says
Dean Anderson said, and is
While finding prior art is hard problem in any field, it would be helpful
if the Patent Office hired more experts in the fields that they offer
patents in, and in particular, more computer scientists.
Dan says:
In the above, a chemist would substitute Chemist
A recent editorial in Microprocessor Report (a pricey but very useful
newsletter) covers an interesting patent tussle in the RAM market. It
is relevant to the IETF process in that the features that were
patented were put into the standards process while the patent owner
silently moved the
in writing
the articles have much detailed knowledge about technical
realities of the Internet
A very large percentage of those participating in writing
the articles increase their income a lot, if business model
patents were valid
They lack
Hi folks and all,
At 10:04 06/04/00 JST, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Online business patents are, at large, ineffective and harmless.
We can have servers outside of US and there is no legislation (even
under US laws. note that the servers can serve yet another countries)
to make the servers illegal
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Even if it's not true in the general case, a sufficiently expensive lawyer
might be able to convince the court that, since the Internet makes location
irrelevant, the location of the infringement is irrelevant.
that US patents are applicable even if both servers
f it's not true in the general case, a sufficiently expensive lawyer
might be able to convince the court that, since the Internet makes location
irrelevant, the location of the infringement is irrelevant.
that US patents are applicable even if both servers, clients and network
inbe
Check with the lawyers, but I think that you will find that this
is strictly a US view of patents. In every other country any public
disclosure anywhere immediately voids the right to patent. Even
NDA disclosure can be tricky, because an offer for sale counts
as a disclosure.
Stewart
Doug
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
