[ih] Off topic: patents and public stewardship

[Bob Purvy]

They *should* be freely available, but we'd also like them to be Prior Art
so that people can't obtain patents on them. Before anyone jumps down my
throat, the requirements for this are minimal, but they're designed to foil
bad actors and their clever lawyers:

IANAL so these should be reviewed by an IP lawyer ("intellectual property"
not "Internet Protocol"):

1. The date when something becomes "available" should be recorded.

2. The count (but not the names or IP addresses).of downloaders should be
recorded.

3. The patent offices of every country in the world should be made aware of
it, so that patent applications can be checked against it.

4. A searchable directory should be maintained. Being searchable by Google
and other search engines might be sufficient as a minimum.

5. All professional journals should be made aware of it and preferably
publish links, so that "generally known to persons of skill in the art" is
true.

#2 answers the complaint that a document, while notionally "published," was
not really available to persons of skill in the art. If we can say "2000
people downloaded this on the day it was published" that complaint goes
away.

#4 is the modern equivalent of the library having it in its card catalog.

#5 answers the "no one knew about this!" objection.


On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:44 PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> > to make a bit of revenue.
>
> No. Just no. The IETF Trust doesn't even have copyright as such, and
> we want I-Ds to be freely available just as RFCs are.
>
> Also if any money was to be made, it would go to IETF LLC these days,
> because they have to fund IETF tools and services.
>
> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
>
> On 06-Feb-24 11:10, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
> > On 2/4/24 12:35 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> >
> > We are rather drifting away from my initial suggestion that rather than
> > discarding IETF drafts after six months that we assign them to some nice
> > non-profit qualified body (such as ISOC) to manage and to make a bit of
> > revenue.  I perhaps triggered a tripwire by mentioning that such a body
> > could also be a useful repository for any patents, trademarks, or
> > copyrights that someone owns and would like to make the legal rights
> > available to the world, even beyond the end of their lifetimes.
> >
> > (I am aware of the issues of ISOC, PIR, and .org - but apart from
> > recognizing that bodies can and do change over time, especially if under
> > financial pressure, I don't think this thread ought to do more than
> > recognize that those events are subject to diverse interpretations.)
> >
> >>  From my admittedly anecdotal experience over about 2 years of patent
> >> battle, it seemed to me that the only way to participate in the patent
> >> system is to be a very large corporation, or at least an individual
> >> with deep pockets able to withstand the possible years or decades of
> >> battle in the system.
> >
> > You are right that sometimes very deep pockets are necessary. But that
> > is not always the case, particularly at the filing/issuance stage.
> >
> > We have obtained US patents for less than $10K in initial drafting and
> > filing costs.  Our patent attorney is really good at telling us what
> > parts we can do ourselves (in order to reduce his time/fees) and even
> > has us practice with a couple of things (such as filing provisionals.)
> > It doesn't hurt to take a look at books such as the Nolo Press' "Patent
> > It Yourself" to become familiar with some of the steps and terminology.
> > (Admittedly, our patent person is a friend and we are probably getting
> > preferential rates on fees.)
> >
> > As you and others mention, the cost of defending or attacking a patent
> > can be high.  But as I mentioned, having an issued patent with its
> > presumption of validity creates strong protective barrier that an
> > attacker has to penetrate.
> >
> > In our own experience, patents are best though of as bargaining chips
> > rather than things to fight over.
> >
> > It was mentioned by John L. that one can simply not patent something at
> > all or could abandon a patent.  Same for copyrights and trademarks.
> > Sure.  But part of the discussion here was regarding vehicles so that
> > groups like ISOC could demonstrate public support and obtain $ revenue.
> >
> > By-the-way, I was rather amused by the reference to the ISOC posting
> > policy in that that policy fails to enshrine the grant of rights over
> > the posted materials with an explicit non-revocation provision.
> >
> >       --karl--
> >
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>