I think your suggestion is a very good and balanced one. And I'm going
to fully disclose our IPR.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:01 AM
To: Peter Kay; Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list
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