ObDeclaration: I am also a practitioner in this field.
I see no problem with people making purely factual claims such as
'Document X may constitute prior art with respect to some of the
Making conclusions is where the problem might lie, if that is someone
was foolish enough to consider commentary in this forum to be a
reliable form of advice or that either the IETF or the poster had any
duty of care with respect to the advice given.
Construing patent claims is not as straightforward as it might appear
at first sight.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 4:57 PM, David Morris <dwm(_at_)xpasc(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, todd glassey wrote:
Dean - I think the problem is that the individuals in the IETF who
represent their sponsors are generally not licensed patent agents or
attorneys (although there are a couple of exceptions to this last one)
and so its really hard for someone who has no experience in the patent
process to make any reliable commentary.
I think there are two aspects of commentary ... commenting on the legal
aspects is, as you have noted, of limited value. But commenting on the
technical basis of a patent claim is within the realm of expertise of this
group, just as most of us have no legal standing, only some of us will be
experts for any any given issue. We can comment on prior art and we can
comment on the question of whether a particular issue represents a
solution that experienced practitioners in a particular technology would
come up with as an obvious solution.
Those observations may, when taken back to our interested parties, may
stimulate proper legal process actions to object to or support a
particular patent application. The open discussion in the IETF can
make a meaningful contribution, even if the opions on their own have
no legal standing.
Ietf mailing list
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
Ietf mailing list