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

[Jack Haverty]

Interesting, thanks - that makes a bit more sense.   First to file still 
has to consider prior art to get a patent granted.

There's still a question of what it means to "publish".  In the case I 
dealt with, we used the Arpanet IMP code to show that an algorithm used 
in the IMP was prior art.    That code was certainly in wide use, but it 
wasn't "published" in any traditional sense (except in the code written 
in Honeywell 316 assembler).

BTW, DCEC (Defense Communications Engineering Center) patented some 
netork-related technologies (protocols, algorithms) in the early 
Internet days (early 80s), explicitly to make sure they were not 
patented later but would be always publicly available for use. Sorry I 
can't remember exactly what they patented, or what triggered them to go 
through the patent process, or who orchestrated the process.  Maybe 
someone else remembers the history.

Perhaps some government(s) organizations could similarly take on the 
role of protecting technology today?

Jack



On 2/3/24 16:43, Bob Purvy wrote:
> Correct, Scott. First to file just eliminated "I thought of this and 
> wrote it in my notebook, but never published it."
>
> Jack's statement
>
>     At the time, I heard lots of discussions in the lawyer world about the
>     apparent upcoming switch to "First To File" structure, and the
>     impression I got was that the new structure would take away a lot
>     of the
>     complexity of finding prior art and litigating a patent's validity for
>     20+ years.  Prior art wouldn't matter.   The first patent filed would
>     rule, and couldn't be invalidated by presenting some previously
>     unknown
>     (to the Examiners)  prior art.
>
>
> is wrong. Prior art is still anything published.
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 4:32 PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history 
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>     if someone challenging a patent can find prior art from a year or
>     more before the patent application
>     was filed then patent can be invalidated - first to file does not
>     change that - first to file just means
>     that the person who thought of the invention first may not be the
>     one getting a patent on the invention
>
>     Scott
>
>
>
>     > On Feb 3, 2024, at 7:17 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history
>     <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>     >
>     > About 12 years ago I was involved as an expert witness in a
>     patent fight that had been going on literally for 20+ years.  The
>     Patent Office had issued the patent and it had been invalidated
>     and revalidated several times as the lawyers battled over the decades.
>     >
>     > That was when the US system was "First To Invent", and prior art
>     played a large role in challenging the validity of patents.  We
>     use the Arpanet IMP as an example of prior art to invalidate the
>     patent (actually just one of many claims).  The issue of whether
>     or not the patent was actually valid (even though it had alrready
>     expired after 17 years) was never resolved, because the litigants
>     settled out of court.
>     >
>     > At the time, I heard lots of discussions in the lawyer world
>     about the apparent upcoming switch to "First To File" structure,
>     and the impression I got was that the new structure would take
>     away a lot of the complexity of finding prior art and litigating a
>     patent's validity for 20+ years.  Prior art wouldn't matter.   The
>     first patent filed would rule, and couldn't be invalidated by
>     presenting some previously unknown (to the Examiners)  prior art.
>     >
>     > I'm not in that world now, so I don't know how things actually
>     changed after the 2013 switch to "First To File".  It seemed that
>     such a change would make filing a patent much more important to
>     establish ownership of some innovation.   It wouldn't help to
>     search and find someone who had done it before, but failed to file
>     a patent.  Whoever filed first legally owned the technology.
>     >
>     > My impression of how the IETF operates now is that it creates
>     technology (protocols, algorithms, etc) and puts them "on the
>     shelf" for anyone to use.  But does the IETF (or anyone else)
>     protect such innovations by filing a patent?
>     >
>     > What's to prevent some patent troll now from taking whatever
>     IETF puts "on the shelf" and filing a patent application for it?
>     >
>     > Jack Haverty
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     > Internet-history mailing list
>     > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>     > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
>     -- 
>     Internet-history mailing list
>     Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>     https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240203/6f883542/attachment.asc>