[chapter-delegates] Patent on IPv6

[Patrick Vande Walle]

Franck Martin said the following on 31/03/2005 01:14:

> I'm not saying they should go against a org member in this case, but 
> that having ISOC not represented in WIPO and WTO, leave IETF at risk. 
> This was an example of such risk... I'm sure there are others, but 
> they did not make it to the press....

The main issue here is the USPTO( but this also appolies to its European 
equivalent, BTW). Patent offices should do their basic homework, ie 
search for prior art. Given that RFCs are publicly available, one could 
find relevant work in 5 minutes of googling. They didn't. The next 
question is  "why". I do not the internals of the USPTO. I know however 
that the main revenue stream for the european patent office are the 
patents themselves. The more granted patents, the better the revenue. 
Patent offices should be neutral and with no financial interest  in the 
process itself.

> Well, are we coming back to the money for vote issue? If they are org 
> member I think we should speak to them if we feel they are wrong and 
> we are doing something right, if they do't understand or do not want 
> to discuss, I think it is fair to escalate, but as org member I think 
> we can solve the issue internally. Finally, I think ISOC should be 
> able to take any org member to task too, they are supposed to follow a 
> code of conduct too with ISOC/IETF.

Yes. It is true that the behaviour of the members (individual and org 
... or chapters) could have a negative effect on  ISOC's image. When 
things go too far, ISOC should be in a position to protect itself. This 
is why we need more org members, in order to be able to exclude one, 
with only a marginal effect on the budget.

-- 
Patrick Vande Walle 
See you at ICANN Luxembourg, 9-15 July 2005  
http://www.icann.lu