Thierry Moreau <thierry(_dot_)moreau(_at_)connotech(_dot_)com> writes:
You seem to assume that patent rights are created by the IPR
disclosure, while they are created by the *patent* (in this case still
at the application stage) that you didn't study.
I've seen you claim this a few times, and I wish to attempt to refute
the argument.
What we are evaluating here is how the patent status around the
technology affects deployment and smooth operations of the Internet.
While the claims in a patent (application) is relevant, it is not the
only thing that is relevant.
There are many patents out there that, if enforced, would make it
impossible to implement core Internet protocols. I'm told the TLS
protocol itself is covered by several patents, for example. We don't
care as much about those patents because nobody appears to enforce them.
That proves that the claims made in patents aren't the only thing we
must look at.
The actions taken by the patent filer, and the licensing conditions
demanded by the patent filer is usually more interesting.
There are organizations that use patents as a threat to sue other
organizations. In these cases, the patent is not as important as the
legal threat. It is possible to threaten to sue even if the patent is
irrelevant to the case at hand, for anyone sufficiently familiar with
the technology. That doesn't change the legal risk.
When evaluating whether to implement a particular technology, you need
to evaluate all the risks. The text of patent (applications) helps in
the evaluation. My point is that the actions of patent holders is
significantly more relevant.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf