On the contrary, prior art can be very useful if the patent is held by the
right party.
Most of the patents are actually in reasonably friendly hands. It is pretty
easy to get a royalty free license if the other party suspects that the
patent is not enforceable and has other more important business interests.
Phill
-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Shafranovich [mailto:research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 12:11 PM
To: Alan DeKok; asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Asrg] US Spam patents: Partial list
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
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg