Thierry Moreau wrote:
Check by yourself, I do not provide
professional advice in here.
And that's why I made my suggestion that we do these analyses in a
professional manner! Too many patent-savvy attorneys (and their companies?)
expect the community to decide these things in a random fashion. The
IETF--collectively--needs professional advice, including from you.
I will allow that you speak for yourself and offer no guarantees or
warranties. But expert attorneys need to give us their expert opinions about
the effects of specific patents on our specific work.
That's why I'm so irritated that the previous IPR WG, since disbanded
(fortunately), refused even to discuss a patent policy for IETF. Of course
such studied ignorance can lead to community displays of confusion and
anger. Hence the FSF campaign and others like it; entirely justified.
/Larry
Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen
-----Original Message-----
From: Thierry Moreau [mailto:thierry(_dot_)moreau(_at_)connotech(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 10:20 AM
To: lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: References to Redphone's "patent"
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Lots of the recent emails on this list refer to Redphone's "patent" but
there is no such thing.
In my emails, I used the reference to US patent application 11/234,404
as amended on 2008/01/25.
As anyone who has ever worked with real patents knows, there is a great
difference between a patent application and a patent. Whatever claims
are
written in patent applications are merely wishes and hopes, placeholders
for
negotiated language after a detailed examination of the application.
Until
the PTO actually issues a patent, nothing is fixed. And even then,
newly-found prior art and other issues can defeat an issued patent.
Indeed, plus the geographical applicability restrictions that are
determined 30 or 31 months after the priority date according to PCT
rules - the above patent application has national or regional
applications in Australia, Canadian, and the EU (I didn't check the EPO
database, perhaps it's not the whole EPC member states).
Why are we all so afraid of Redphone? Who gives a damn what patent
claims
they hope to get?
I guess (i.e. speculate) that it is more convenient for the FSF to get
publicity / support with a case involving a small organization without
significant market presence and lobbying resources that could retaliate
an FSF campaign more visibly. I thought the GnuTLS connection triggered
the FSF action, but Simon corrected me on this hypothesis.
There's something wrong with the IETF process if spurious and self-
serving
assertions that "a patent application has been filed" can serve to hold
up
progress on important technology. I wish you'd ask real patent attorneys
to
advise the community on this rather than react with speculation and a
generalized fear of patents.
I agree.
You may notice that the FSF did not share (AFAIK) any result of
investigation into the patent application status which would include
some professional advice.
Actually, two PCT/WIPO search/examination reports are on-line, and one
*denies* novelty to every claims but 3 of them, and denies inventive
step to all of them! The patent applicant may (further) amend the claims
at the national or regional phase, but the initial assessment is not so
good for the patent applicant. Check by yourself, I do not provide
professional advice in here.
So it's really the FSF campaign that is detracting the IETF process here
in the way you are alluding above. The Redphone's IPR disclosure 1026
verbatim does not detract the IETF process.
Again, finer investigations and analyses of IPR issues (finer than
ideological opposition to patents) would be benefitial to the IETF.
Regards,
- Thierry Moreau
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf