Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
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.
No. This is simply not true.
First, the "strength" of the patent is only of secondary
interest in a "research" group where the focus should be on determining
what is the best mechanism or process for ending the spam problem. The
"strength" of a patent will only become interesting once one is at the
point of recommending specific solutions -- not when we're still trying
to understand what solutions are possible. To understand this
application domain, we need to understand the patented methods, and
their prior art, as well as the unpatented ones.
Discovering and discussing prior art is useful in that this
prior art might reveal some aspect of a solution that the patent doesn't
cover. Remember, the goal here is "research" or "learning." Also, the
presence of prior art is something that should eventually get used by
those who take the non-research step of recommending and investing in
specific solutions. Just as it is important to know that one or another
method is encumbered, it is important to know that prior art may exist
for one or another encumbering patent.
bob wyman
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg