At 06:32 AM 6/12/2003 -1000, Peter Kay wrote:
IMHO: as an a holder of a anti-spam patent pending, I think its best to
let IPR holders approach us. Otherwise you put yourself in the
unenviable position of "authority" on patents. If you just say "these
are the IPR claims that have been submitted to us" that makes it clean
and simple, not to mention easy to maintain.
In some cases this would not be true. Take MailBlocks, for example - they
are claiming patents on all C/R systems. They have not approached, and
since their IP is of very general nature, thus we must approach them to
solicit a submission of IPR claims which is what I have done. Otherwise, we
might be working on a standard only to find out that it is patented. As for
the patents that are covering every nook and cranny of anti-spam, I am
agreeing with you. It would be an impossible task to catalog all patents in
the world.
Therefore, I am suggesting that we should have the following policy:
1. Solicit input from IP holders on very broad business methods patents
such as the MailBlocks patents.
2. Request that all members of the group that have IP, submit information
about it.
3. Accept submissions from IPR claimants that are not part of the group as
they send them.
P.S. BTW, Peter, it would probably be prudent that you let us know some
details on your IP. Feel free to use the template
(http://www.solidmatrix.com/research/asrg/asrg-ipr.html).
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg