spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination

2004-09-16 15:49:56

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR
Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt>
in Combination



Let's just hope the examiner has enough information to reject these
claims
due to prior art.  Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that the
examiner
will be sufficiently familiar with the prior art and once granted,
patents
cost a fortune to challenge.

They won't be rejected for prior art.  I can't think of the  last time
a tech patent was rejected for prior art (not that I'm in the know at
the USPTO - I am not not *not* a patent lawyer - but when was the last
time anyone here heard of a technology patent app. being rejected for
prior art?)

The conventional wisdom is that the USPTO's mode now is to grant nearly
everything, and let it be sorted out by the courts.

Has this hit over on Marid yet?  The web archives are horribly behind,
and I don't get it to my mailbox.

Anne

Umm. I have, but I work at a research lab where such cases are used as
teaching examples of how to make sure your patent gets granted and no one
you've exposed to your work accidentally publishes it ahead of you.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>