Still off-topic, but please let me, for once, provide a constructive
answer to a legitimate concern voiced by Bill:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
actually, the key point here is that apparently a number of
(good) people are avoiding the IETF process because they
believe their ideas, intended to be partof open standards
development, are being patented by others and then used as
leverage to force particular outcomes.
Such beliefs are corrosive and distructive to the IETF process
and it is not clear how such concerns could be avoided in
todays environment.
Answer: better understanding of the patent regime, which suggests two
obvious avenues:
(A) Publish something, e.g. an individual draft -00, on the subject area
about which the concern applies, where (every) concievable paths towards
a solution are disclosed: existing, adapted from other contexts, on the
design bench, or just envisioned. In patent examination terminology, the
latter two categories "teach" innovations directions, so that many
potential refined schemes, although not exactly in the publication, are
"obvious" given this publication (e.g. combined with other knowledge
from the art). No big worry that the -00 draft expires; it should be
still a publication with an acknowledged publication date.
I.e. inflate the public domain prior art beyond what is desirable
technically.
Note: Your mileage may vary depending on who signs the paycheck of this
document author. In the free market economy, a genuine invention is an
asset that finance management may not want to give away. This is part of
the global ecosystem in which IETF operates.
(B) Whenever a patent application becomes public (usually 18 months
after filing date), bring the inventor or his/her patent agent's
attention to whatever prior art exist in the field (you don't need to
defer this to litigation). The onus is on the inventor or agent to take
such prior art into account (typically making the patent claims less
generic as the more general schemes are more likely to be disclosed
somewhere).
I.e. use the cheaper routes to challenge patent applications.
I am not a lawyer (IANAL), but the above are elementary IPR management
strategies. Many patent agents may not insist on these: their
professional activities are centered where (A) is avoided in favor of
potential patent applications by the document author, and/or (B) occurs
later in the process, once the paperwork exchange is started between the
agent and the patent examiner.
Coming back to the issue at hand, I see no need for misconceptions about
IPR to detract work on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.
Regards,
--
- Thierry Moreau
CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada H2M 2A1
Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax: (514)385-5900
web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
