On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Randy Presuhn wrote: > > From: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> > > To: "Paul Hoffman / VPNC" <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> > > Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:27 PM > > Subject: Re: Shuffle those deck chairs! > ... > > Hmm. Maybe what the IETF could also find useful is an informal > > repository where people who believe they've found prior art [or > > possibly some other information] can insert short text and pointers to > > such work. (Obviously with disclaimers.) > ... > > With the US moving to a European-style "first-to-file" discipline, > how would this help? I don't know the details of such discipline, and luckily enough don't even want to. But trying to think of this logically, "first-to-file" patent process should just mean that if there are two people who claim to have invented the something, and each separately files a patent on it, the patent office just looks which one filed it first, not which one actually invented it first. I don't see how that applies in the situation where someone files a patent, but there is ample evidence that the approach has been in wide-spread use for e.g., 5 years since it was filed, but those people who originally "invented it" did not file a patent. Hence, it would seem natural that the concept of "prior art" and whether the technology is sufficiently novel if other people have been doing it for a long time should still hold some weight even in "first-to-file" disciplines. Remember, we are not trying to pick who of the N patent applicants should be granted the patent; we're here to prove, usually after the fact, that the stuff was already invented or commonplace, and the patent is not novel, based on the prior art, and there is good chance that it would not be enforceable. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf