Pete Resnick wrote:
Just a heads-up:
Adrian Farrel and I started work on a draft to focus discussion on
sanctions that could be applied to violators of the IETF's IPR policy.
Because of incidents like the present one, we've each been asked by WG
chairs and others what can be done in response to such violations. We've
centered our draft around sanctions that are available under current
IETF procedures, not introducing new ones. The draft should be
available in the I-D repository soon. We think this could usefully
become an RFC and we would welcome discussion.
Thanks,
pr
Personally, this may be addressing the wrong problem.
However, I do think that a document or change in existing documents
has merit to strongly focus on the fundamental idea that the
integration of IETF RFC published technology is not subject to any
kind of IPR restriction now or in the future.
Thats really the key problem here and its 100% related to the changes
to the patent laws and how that has negatively affected the IETF IPR
model which is old dated.
To the layman, experts call it the new timeline. The problem is the
simplistic ideas that integrating existing known parts where never
patentability prior to 1996. This was relaxed in 1996 with whats
called "Software Methods" or "Business Methods." But what really
changed is the the due diligence was no longer the patent examiner to
perform the full Markus Analysis. He looked for the obvious but much
of the responsibility was expected to be done by the applicant.
This is important because it hits home with all the long time systems,
especially the all the systems out there that use some and/or these
IETF parts and there is no reason to not expect they could use other
IETF parts in the future (i.e. SIP).
From the patent standpoint:
pre-1996 : SIP+SIEVE patent WOULD be denied. The PATENT is on
the new METHOD
unique in the SIP+SIEVE integration, not the
integration itself.
And a PHYSICAL DEMO must exist. The IDEA itself is
not enough.
1996-~2009: SIP+SIEVE patent MAY be denied. The patent MAY
includes the
integration and encompasses all METHODS of integration.
~2009+ : Further relaxation, SIP+SIEVE patent WILL NOT be denied
Any prior art disputes must be added to patent. The
RIGHT
to challenge is not denied but its 100% the burden of
others.
IOW, now this the patent was filed for SIP+SIEVE, the impact is ALL
existing systems, based on the 2009+ laws, CAN NOT add SIP to their
SMTP/IMAP system using SIEVE.
Thats the problem Pete. In short, I can no longer even consider the
idea of using SIP with SIEVE any more even if my integrated method is
unique.
The IETF needs to begin to address this serious problem of people
using IETF technology parts in some integrated method and makes a
"Business Method" patent claim.
I guess, if there is any "sanctions" it would be a simple idea that
once a discovery of a claim is made purely based in the integration of
IETF parts with nothing novel in the claim, then the I-D and/or RPC
would be PULLED and no longer be a IETF document for consideration
without a 100% PUBLIC/FREE/OPEN usage declaration.
Its a tough issue, but I think it becomes simply to deal with once the
strong idea that mere integration of IETF parts is not patentable
material.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf