At 09:24 AM 6/15/2003 -0400, Alan DeKok wrote:
"Peter Kay" <peter(_at_)titankey(_dot_)com> wrote:
> I think those type of comments and questions about what is patentable or
> not are unproductive to this list,
Discussions of prior art for anti-spam patents should be explicitely
on-topic for this list.
I was originally planning on tracking prior art from the list for the
document I am keeping. However, there is simply so much information being
provided that I am rethinking the decision. However, I would have to agree
with Alan about this: prior art discussions are practically useless for
patents that have been already granted, since the group is not planning on
using the prior art to challenge the patents. The only useful utility that
may possible come from prior art is the determination of how strong the
patent is - but then again we are not lawyers.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg