Michael Richardson wrote:
"Pete" == Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
Pete> decision about what ought to be done here. The community needs
Pete> to come to a consensus about the right outcome and the
Pete> leadership folks will judge that consensus and instantiate
Pete> whatever actions need to be taken. It's certainly OK if you
At this point, I do not have a clear idea of what the set of outcomes
could be. I think that they can include:
1) not publishing the document.
2) revising the document to remove/work-around the encumbered work
3) some legal action to attend to anul the patent (which might or
might not succeed).
4) go ahead and publish things as they are.
I am concerned that the individual may be scapegoated here, but I also
do not buy that they didn't understand things.
The company spent money to file a patent, and they hired someone to do
this, and they certainly knew where the "invention" was documented.
There is a need for a consequence for not following the IPR.
I read the document, but not the patent, so I don't see what's so novel
about it all, and I also don't know how hard it would be to work around.
My preference is to some method to remove any value the patent might
have.
+1.
Given the nature of the new 1996 timeline for patentability of prior
art, the richness of technologies, the integration of technologies.
e.g. the Markus Analysis does not apply as strong as it did which in
short, says the following (paraphrasing from my old Westinghouse Chief
Lawyer presentation to the Venture Group):
- You can not take prior art A, B and create a patent D, unless
there is a new and unique part C,
- Given the first rule, parts A and B can not be restricted on
existing systems and/or deny existing systems to implement what
would be natural course of their existence. IOW, if a Markus
Analysis shows that Part C is a natural evolution of the existing
systems, they can not denied adding it.
This is what has me to sleep like a baby with the new frivolous
patents of prior arts that is now allowed. Unfortunately, what has
allowed the new patent era to exist is the less emphasis of performing
the Markus Analysis by patent examiners.
Overall, the mere fact of submitting an IETF document, by definition,
it means implementators are not subject to any sort of restrictions.
As it is right now, when I see new I-D comes in, if it even smells
like its has IPR related stuff, I totally 100% skip it. Ignore it. I
don't bother with it.
In my view, the IETF should view new submissions in the same way. So
its not only a,
"Are you totally sure this is IPR-claim-free?"
but also
"Are you using IETF related parts?
Because if the I-D submitter is using existing IETF parts, then he/she
must be aware that any IPR existing or in the future against anyone
that exist using such parts or now also include future system that
decides to use the new I-D.
In my view, Mr. Resnick, should consider the concept of the Markus
Analysis. If this I-D is allowed to go thru, how will it alter
existing systems? Will existing systems with all the parts, except
the integration of the new by existing part, be denied the natural
inclusion of the new part?
In other words, a system that has IETF technology SMTP and/or IMAP and
SIEVE already in place, if they add an existing IETF technology SIP,
will they be restricted?
There has to be something completely novel and not an IETF technology
for it to hold any strength. But if that is not the case, where each
part is an IETF technology, the mere integration of all these IETF
parts, by definition, must not have any sort of patent strength or for
that matter, recognition.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
jabber: hector(_at_)jabber(_dot_)isdg(_dot_)net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf