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
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 are
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 the
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
