[ih] patent licenses, not Why the six month draft expiration ?

[Bob Purvy]

Since my patent credentials are pretty impeccable (licensed Patent Agent,
an SSRN paper that was cited in an *amicus *brief for *CLS Bank v. Alice*):

anything that's a "printed publication" is prior art. It doesn't matter if
it's official or unofficial. A patent applicant is considered to be
responsible for knowing it. It also doesn't matter if it's cited in another
patent or not. You can defeat a patent with it.

  The one thing that would help is a reliable date-stamp on any emails or
archives, so that no one can question whether it was *actually *available
to people in the art on that date. In that sense, your idea is worthwhile.

As for "most active IETFers hate patents and (IMO) hate their own corporate
patent lawyers too", I wrote a couple of Substck articles on this:

https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/no-source-code-no-patent

https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/lets-vote-on-it

The latter one is a practical approach to abolishing software patents.
There's no promise it'll work, but we know by now that hoping for a miracle
by the Executive or Judicial branches is futile.

There is a bill
<https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/09/05/passing-pera-assures-patent-eligibility-useful-inventions/id=166270/#:~:text=Titled%20the%20Patent%20Eligibility%20Restoration,methods%20and%20advanced%20computer%20applications.>
in the Senate that would undo the modest progress that *CLS Bank* made. So
it would be completely legitimate to ask any candidate for the Senate if he
or she supports it. You WILL get a blank "deer in the headlights" stare,
but they will at least sasign a staff member to find out what this bill is
all about. And then be ready with some kind of statement for the next time
someone asks.


On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 2:51 PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On 04-Feb-24 11:30, John R. Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Feb 2024, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >> - I think it would be cool if ISOC or the IETF established an arm that
> could
> >> accept and hold network related patents and issue licenses (for free or
> for
> >> reasonable low fees and non-discriminatory terms.)  I have nothing more
> >> detailed that that thought, but I do so much dislike the surfacing of
> patent
> >> trolls, always at the most inconvenient of times.
> >
> > Speaking as a former trustee of the IETF Trust,  GAAAAAHHHHH
> NONONONONONO.
>
> Ditto, and ditto.
>
> > That would be painting a bullseye on ourselves for patent trolls.
>
> Worse than that, it would make the IETF into an evil patent pool in
> itself, with an extremely high risk of becoming a de facto cartel.
>
> Fortunately, most active IETFers hate patents and (IMO) hate their
> own corporate patent lawyers too. So we've had rather few instances
> of the standards process being held hostage to patent claims.
>
> >
> > The IETF has a carefully designed patent policy.  It was largely written
> by
> > Jorge Contreras who is quite literally the world's leading expert on
> standards
> > and IP.  We were very lucky to have him work with us.  Scott was his
> coauthor
> > and might fill in some details.
> >
> > To oversimplify it says everyone involved in developing an RFC must
> disclose
> > IPR related to it, and the IETF can decide what to do with them. Most
> IETF
> > standards are either unencumbered or have free public licenses but there
> have
> > been a few with more restrictive licenses.
>
> And it says that patent claims MAY be taken into account in the decision
> to standardize something. That flexibility is important - if someone does
> show up with a patented bright idea, they are very strongly incented to
> also show up with fair licensing conditions. Otherwise, no RFC, which
> matters
> when purchasers require RFC compliance.
>
>     Brian
>
> >
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8179.html
> >
> > Here's Jorge's list of papers at SSRN, lots of stuff about FRAND,
> > standard-essential patents, and a certain amount about trolls.
> >
> > https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1335192
> >
> > Regards,
> > John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> > Dummies",
> > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
> https://jl.ly
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>