Stephan, Submarine patent is a great term, very clear in its "pop out and surprise you" meaning. As the wikipedia page says: "The phrase is occasionally used more generally for any patent used in patent ambush" and that's fine by me. I'm going to give a UK definition of the term: "What is the submarine patent strategy? A submarine patent is one that the holder does not draw attention to, even when aware that it is being infringed, in the hope that it will be possible to extract more money from unwitting users of the patented idea when it becomes more widely used." The world is not the US, and the world is not wikipedia, helpful though it is, and biased though it is. best Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 01:12:25 GMT+10, Stephan Wenger <stewe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Lloyd, Most of your message is in-line with my understanding and helpful in the context here. However, the Wikipedia reference to “submarine patent” is not. Don’t link to the Wikipedia page for Submarine patents to get your message across. It’s misleading. Either the linking, or the page itself. Even better, as the term Submarine patent is used inconsistently, I avoid it and I recommend others do the same. The Wikipedia page you linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent defines a submarine patent as a patent based on an application whose prosecution has been artificially delayed so to extent the duration enforceability of the patent. That was possible under the pre 1995 US patent system (and a few other patent systems outside the US), where a patent was valid for 17 years post grant date, rather than 20 years post the earliest priority date, which is common now. Insofar, Submarine patent as defined by the Wikipedia article are a thing of the past. This definition, AFAIK, is still predominant in the US patent lawyer community, especially their older members. The patent at issue in Dell is not a submarine patent when using above definition—its priority date was in 1989, it was granted in 1991, which was fast prosecution indeed, even for the time. That said, many armchair lawyers in in the open source community, folks in economics, but also increasingly younger US patent lawyers and patent lawyers outside the US, use the term “Submarine patent” in the context you apparently use it as well. They associate the term “submarine patent” with a patent that was intentionally hidden from a user community, despite knowledge of its possible applicability to the users, so to exert potentially unreasonable royalties once users are commercially locked into the technology. That, I believe, was a driving factor in Dell, and its IMO deplorable practice. If using the term “submarine patent” in this context, don’t link to the Wikipedia page. But better, don’t use such an ambiguous term, especially not when discussing old US case law. Stephan From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Lloyd W <lloyd.wood=40yahoo.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Date: Monday, August 7, 2023 at 19:14To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>, jordi.palet=40theipv6company.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <jordi.palet=40theipv6company.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 117attendees@xxxxxxxx <117attendees@xxxxxxxx>, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx>Subject: Re: Privacy and IETF participation (was: Re: [117attendees] Hilton room rates (Was: IETF 117 - thanks and afterthoughts)) context: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/960617dellconsentorder.pdf https://www.wikiwand.com/en/VESA_Local_Bus it's the very model of a submarine patent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent I don't think working around the microchannel architecture to avoid its licensing fees is in itself objectionable. but designing a replacement that depends on a connector that you've secretly patented and lied about not having patented would be. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx > > On 8 Aug 2023, at 05:52, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > While agreeing with most of what John wrote, I think it is necessary to revisit what actually happened in the Dell patent case that motivates a lot of 'Note Well'. > > > > > > > > The FTC suit and subsequent settlement was based on conduct much more egregious than a Dell employee merely being present. The whole point of VESA-Local bus was to find a way round the patented IBM Microchannel architecture. And by the time Dell settled, Intel had come out with the Pentium which made VL-bus unviable as it was tied to peculiarities of the 486. > > >
