Under the current patent system a company that does not apply for =
patents risks finding that a patent troll has applied for their idea. =
Publishing the idea should have the same effect as patenting it: to make
future applications invalid.
In practice, given the fallibility of the US PTO, neither a
publication nor an existing patent guarantees it will not issue a new
patent.
But only if the exercise of the patent is made essential to the =
communications role. As in the audio and video codecs that became =
essential due to being required for DVD.
This is precisely why everyone should oppose the patented standards at
every step of the way.
5) Blanket rules give purported patent claims too much power
=20
Most US patents are completely worthless as far as enforcement goes. The =
main use of patents is to persuade Venture Capital to part with funds =
and some small time trolls extort license fees.
There is no practical means for the IETF to adjuicate on such claims. =
The W3C has a means that seems to work in practice.
The IPR working group turned into a farce
It had a strike against it the moment it was formed, from the term
"IPR". Describing the remit of an activity as "IPR" directs it down
a path that leads to confusion.
So I would not propose to change the "IPR" working group, but rather
to split off the issue of patents and adopt a patent policy similar to
that of the W3C.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf