On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Or perhaps not. Dan's views of what facts are obvious for patents are
> irrelevant to whether or not someone would want to challenge a
> patent-holder in a costly patent fight;
One can't challenge a patent's validity merely by claiming that it is
'irrelevant'; If even one patent claim overlaps your device or program
there is probably a patent case to be found. By (US) statute, the
patent is presumed valid, though courts seem willing to consider
misconduct by the patent holder, such as deceiving a standards body
(Qualcomm case). One must challenge a patent by having it re-examined
by the patent office. When the patent office reverses or amends the
patent, then you've succeeded. Otherwise, you have nothing.
The patent office has reversed many patents on obviousness grounds. My
own view is that there are really very few truly novel patents. Yet
there are indeed truly novel patents and such patents are quite
devastating. But all patents have to be respected. Certicom appears to
own most (126 I think) patents on elliptic curve crypto, and I've read a
few of their patents. The patents are quite broad, and its hard to
imagine much that isn't covered by their patents.
Things have gotten worse for patents. (well, from my point of view).
First-to-file means that what you invent can be patented by someone else
if you haven't published your invention suitably to make it prior art.
There is a grandfather clause that gives the true inventor the continued
right to use the technology, but not the right to let others use it.
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
