Ted,
What about the actual list of possible prior art that I provided in the
original message? My reading of RFC 3669 seems to indicate that its
beneficial:
"
o Possibilities of prior art should be considered.
o It's all right, and sometimes beneficial, to discuss IPR claims and
gather information about possible prior art on the group list.
"
Yakov
Ted Hardie wrote:
Please note that this advice is contrary to the advice given
in RFC 3669. An evaluation of prior art may be considered
in the IETF process; it should be part of a much broader
range of considerations (and I urge folks who have not
read RFC 3669 lately to read it again), but such evaluations
_do_ have their place.
Many folks are stunned by the actions of their governments,
and that prior behavior may be taken into account. But
assuming a result without analysis is a poor response to
a working group's responsibility to determine how to
proceed in the light of IPR claims and offered licenses.
regards,
Ted Hardie
At 11:04 AM -0700 8/31/04, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
IMHO, in light of the possible prior art, it may be very probably that
the potential patent application is invalid or will not approved.
Therefore, it might be feasible to ignore the IPR claim all together
and
preceed with approval of Sender-ID.
Oh dear.
Never, *ever* make the mistake of thinking that a patent application
will not be approved because of prior art.
You'd be stunned at the things which are granted patents where the
prior art seems *so* obvious to anyone who knows (and that is a key -
the guys at the USPTO can't know everything, and it is not their job
to know everything).
Right now the MO at the USPTO seems to be "approve everything, and let
them sort it out in the courts".
Anne