More to the point, patent law is one of the only two areas of law where you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. The other is tax law. Yes, I could have simply published the work. That establishes prior art. However, let us consider this very real (I have experienced it) scenario. 1. I invent something. It is generally useful, yet I don't think I'll get rich on the idea. 2. I publish the invention, to put a stake in the ground, hoping to put the invention into the commons. 3. Someone else, without knowledge of my publication, invents something similar, or the same, and patents the invention. 4. That someone else sues people over my invention. 5. I am now facing US$ 250,000 minimum, US$ 1,000,000 typical, in legal fees to invalidate the patent issued in step 3. 6. I would win the case, because I have the prior art. However, I am not stupid, so I begrudgingly pay $40,000 for the privilege of using my own invention and not paying tons of legal fees. This is why I call it inoculation. US$ 12,000 in legal and filing fees today has a 20x - 80x return on investment protection. Is the system stupid? Unquestionably. Is it the system? Yes. On 10/30/07 2:52 AM, "Dean Anderson" <dean@xxxxxxx> wrote: > [I am rather getting tired of 100+ email addresses in the to: field. > Pine also doesn't allow reply-all to the bcc: field. I'm thinking of > creating a new list of everyone that posts to the IETF list. Thoughts?] > > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > >> Eric Burger wrote: >>> I specifically applied for patents underlying the technology behind >>> RFC 4722/RFC 5022 and RFC 4730 specifically to prevent third >>> parties, who are not part of the IETF process, from extracting >>> royalties from someone who implements MSCML or KPML. >> >> That was a waste of your time and money. Publication of those >> inventions by you, at zero cost to you and others, would have been >> sufficient to prevent someone else from trying to patent them. Next >> time, get good advice from a patent lawyer on how to achieve your >> goals without paying for a patent. > > This was true only in the U.S., and will not be true once the senate > passes the first-to-file legislation that recently passed the house. > > Once first-to-file is put into effect, everyone has to race to the > patent office. It doesn't matter who invented what. However, years ago > legislation passed that grandfather'd the original inventor; the > original inventor can't be charged fees. However, the original inventor > can't change the royalty structure imposed by the first filer. > >> For those here who keep asking for protection against patents in >> standards, there is no more effective technique than through a revised >> IPR policy that prohibits patent-encumbered standards from gaining the >> IETF brand in the first place. > > This sounds like a good idea at first. However, the LPF has long > promoted protective patents: > http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/mutual-def.html > > It would be a bad idea to prohibit all patents in standards. > > In a first-to-invent regime, the law still favors one with a patent, > since it gives one a cross-licensing opportunity to settle a dispute > with a similar, infringed patent, even if one uses their patent only > protectively. > > In a first-to-file regime, protective patents are absolutely necessary. > The U.S. is treaty-bound (GATT) to implement first-to-file patent law. > The House recently passed this legislation, and I think it is expected > to pass the Senate, but the Senate hasn't yet voted. > > I'm a little uneasy about changing the IETF patent policy. First, the > current policy has exactly the right idea: consider the patent and its > license, and make a smart decision. If one follows the rules honestly, > the rules are just right. > > Second, the people most in favor of changing it are the very ones who > silenced me, and who are generally pro-patent. They were the same ones > who said that RFC 3979 wasn't the policy of the IETF. When we look > closely at the proposed document, it has ambiguities (already noticed by > others) that don't distinguish free-as-in-beer from free-as-in-freedom. > > The only thing I might recommend changing about the present policy is to > add a definite mandatory penalty for deceiving the IETF. > > I think we need more honesty and accountability in the leadership of the > IETF before we make such changes. > > --Dean > > Dean Anderson > President of the League for Programming Freedom > > > > > -- > Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? > www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service > 617 344 9000 > > > > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf