Dear Hector, I'm not quite sure that your understanding of the US patent law and MPEP rules is inline with most patent practitioners, or that your post otherwise make all that much sense. First, the thing you are talking about are known as "Markush Claim". From MPEP, 803.02: "A Markush-type claim recites alternatives in a format such as "selected from the group consisting of A, B and C." It deals with the examiners reaction to situations where there are too many group members (typically much more than three, A, B, C; those group members are not sufficiently closely related to deal with them as a group, and where the examiner would face a burden to examine the the claim because A, B, and C, each in combination with the rest of the claim, would require a very different Prior Art search for each A, B, and C. Second, based on my very quick scanning over the patent application in question here, your whole discussion does not appear to apply as the application contains not a single Markush claim. Third, the developments in patent law (more precisely here: US examination rules, MPEP, re Markush claims) are US local. Surely, you don't want to tie the operating procedures of an international organization like the IETF to a mere rule change in one legislation. Fourth, your analysis below of what was/is patentable does not seem correct. AFAIK, nothing earth-shattering has changed with respect to patentability of novel combinations of known subject matter. Markush claims are about a certain way to express selections, but there are many other ways. For example, I believe in bioscience it is now common practice to avoid Markush claims and rather spell out all combinations in dependent claims, and just absorb the excess claim fees. (I have seen biotech patents with more than 500 claims). Fifth, and finally, your "idea of a sanction" would result in a major policy change, essentially disallowing any IETF work moving forward that is not "100% PUBLIC/FREE/OPEN". This may or may not be a good idea, but it's not the discussion we have here. Best regards, Stephan On 1.26.2012 16:07 , "Hector" <sant9442@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >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 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf