Re: Forthcoming draft: draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Pete Resnick wrote:
Just a heads-up:

Adrian Farrel and I started work on a draft to focus discussion on sanctions that could be applied to violators of the IETF's IPR policy. Because of incidents like the present one, we've each been asked by WG chairs and others what can be done in response to such violations. We've centered our draft around sanctions that are available under current IETF procedures, not introducing new ones. The draft should be available in the I-D repository soon. We think this could usefully become an RFC and we would welcome discussion.

Thanks,

pr

Personally, this may be addressing the wrong problem.

However, I do think that a document or change in existing documents has merit to strongly focus on the fundamental idea that the integration of IETF RFC published technology is not subject to any kind of IPR restriction now or in the future.

Thats really the key problem here and its 100% related to the changes to the patent laws and how that has negatively affected the IETF IPR model which is old dated.

To the layman, experts call it the new timeline. The problem is the simplistic ideas that integrating existing known parts where never patentability prior to 1996. This was relaxed in 1996 with whats called "Software Methods" or "Business Methods." But what really changed is the the due diligence was no longer the patent examiner to perform the full Markus Analysis. He looked for the obvious but much of the responsibility was expected to be done by the applicant.

This is important because it hits home with all the long time systems, especially the all the systems out there that use some and/or these IETF parts and there is no reason to not expect they could use other IETF parts in the future (i.e. SIP).

From the patent standpoint:

pre-1996 : SIP+SIEVE patent WOULD be denied. The PATENT is on the new METHOD unique in the SIP+SIEVE integration, not the integration itself. And a PHYSICAL DEMO must exist. The IDEA itself is not enough.

1996-~2009: SIP+SIEVE patent MAY be denied. The patent MAY includes the
                integration and encompasses all METHODS of integration.

   ~2009+    :  Further relaxation, SIP+SIEVE patent WILL NOT be denied
Any prior art disputes must be added to patent. The RIGHT to challenge is not denied but its 100% the burden of others.

IOW, now this the patent was filed for SIP+SIEVE, the impact is ALL existing systems, based on the 2009+ laws, CAN NOT add SIP to their SMTP/IMAP system using SIEVE.

Thats the problem Pete. In short, I can no longer even consider the idea of using SIP with SIEVE any more even if my integrated method is unique.

The IETF needs to begin to address this serious problem of people using IETF technology parts in some integrated method and makes a "Business Method" patent claim.

I guess, if there is any "sanctions" it would be a simple idea that once a discovery of a claim is made purely based in the integration of IETF parts with nothing novel in the claim, then the I-D and/or RPC would be PULLED and no longer be a IETF document for consideration without a 100% PUBLIC/FREE/OPEN usage declaration.

Its a tough issue, but I think it becomes simply to deal with once the strong idea that mere integration of IETF parts is not patentable material.

--
HLS
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]